Museado / NARA Collection grf-0039 — Collection grf-0039
Recent Folios
Login Register
English (inglés) español magyar (húngaro) हिन्दी (hindi)

Survos folio page chat

Illegal Aliens (3)

Ask the Scholar

Page 1 of 1
I can add historical knowledge about this page.

Page image

Page 1

OCR

The original documents are located in Box 18, folder "Illegal Aliens (3)" of the James M. Cannon Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library. Copyright Notice The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald Ford donated to the United States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections. Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library. Digitized from Box 18 of the James M. Cannon Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library PRELIMINARY REPORT DOMESTIC COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON ILLEGAL ALIENS DECEMBER 1976 FORD & LIBRARY GERALD o V Be PRELIMINARY REPORT Domestic Council Committee on Illegal Aliens December, 1976 DOMESTIC COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON ILLEGAL ALIENS Chairman: Edward H. Levi, Attorney General, Department of Justice Committee Members: Secretary of Agriculture Secretary of Commerce Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare Secretary of Labor Secretary of State Secretary of the Treasury Director, Office of Management and Budget Director, Domestic Council Special Assistant to the President for Public Liaison Steering Committee: * Leonard F. Chapman, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturaliza- tion Service, Immigration Law and Policy task force. Barry R. Chiswick, Senior Staff Member, Council of Economic Advisers, Technical Adviser. James F. Greene, Deputy Commissioner, Immigration and Naturali- zation Service, Law Enforcement task force. William F. Luers, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Inter-American Affairs, Department of State, Foreign Relations task force Richard F. Parsons, Associate Director, Domestic Council Victor Vazquez, Director, Office of Spanish Surnamed Americans, Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Social and Community Impact task force Joyce Walker, Deputy Associate Director, Office of Management and Budget Abraham Weiss, Assistant Secretary for Policy, Evaluation and Research, Department of Labor, Economic and Labor Market Impact task force Executive Director: Doris M. Meissner, Department of Justice Staff Assistance: John Chapman, Department of Health, Education and Welfare Norbert J. Krieg, Department of State John Nahan, Immigration and Naturalization Service Jerome Staller, Department of Labor Michael Wenk, Department of Justice * The Steering Committee is composed of the five task force chairmen, the Domestic Council, the Office of Management and Budget and the Council of Economic Advisers which acts as technical adviser. A complete listing of task force members and their agency affiliations appears as Appendix B to this report. Preliminary Report Domestic Council Committee on Illegal Aliens Table of Contents Page Executive Summary V Introduction 1 Chapter I - United States Immigration Law FORD and Policy 6 A. Historical Review 6 LIBRARY Period of Unrestricted Immigration 6 Period of Qualitative Controls 7 Period of Qualitative and Quantitative Controls 8 B. Current Immigration Law 11 1965 Amendments 12 Worker Importation Provisions 18 C. Immigration Policies of Other Nations 26 Canada 28 Australia 29 D. Conclusions and Recommendations 32 Chapter II - Illegal Immigration: The Global Picture 35 A. Who Wants to Come? - Immigration to the U.S.35 Western Hemisphere 35 Eastern Hemisphere 37 B. Illegal Alien Source Countries 39 International Push-Pull 40 The Migration Phenomenon 47 C. Mexico and the United States - A Bilateral Approach 52 U.S. -Mexico Discussions 55 Other Countries 56 D. Competing Foreign Relations Priorities 58 Strict Visa Issuance Controls 58 Tourism 59 E. Conclusions and Recommendations 62 i Page Chapter III - Law Enforcement 66 A. Background 66 Mexico 66 The Bracero Program 69 Operation Wetback 70 The Contemporary Problem 71 Other Countries 74 B. Present Enforcement System 76 Authority 77 Tactics and Procedures 78 Court Decisions 84 Visa Screening 87 C. Interagency Cooperation 89 1972 Social Security Amendments 89 Department of State 96 1. Policy 98 2. Operations 99 3. Justice/State Cooperation 100 4. Actions Within Countries 101 Internal Revenue Service 102 1. Apprehended Illegal Aliens 90-Day Test 102 2. Employers of Illegal Aliens 104 Department of Labor 105 Internal Actions: INS 107 D. Disincentives 110 1. Sanctions on Employers 111 2. Combating Dilatory Tactics 116 3. Sanctions on Illegal Aliens 118 4. Denying Social Benefits 119 5. Enhancing Enforcement 120 6. Changes Having an Indirect Impact 121 E. Conclusions and Recommendations 122 Chapter IV - The Illegal Alien: A Soft Portrait 124 A. Data Deficiencies 124 B. Definitions 131 C. Personal Characteristics 132 D. Characteristics of Entry 142 E. Characteristics of Residence 145 ii Page F. Characteristics of Work Place 148 G. Use of Services 149 H. Contributions to the Tax Base 151 I. Summary 152 Chapter V - Domestic Impact of Illegal Aliens 154 The Issues of Employment and Earnings 154 A. Hypotheses 155 GNP and Relative Incomes 155 Unemployment and Job Vacancies 159 Taxes and Social Services 161 Additional Hypotheses 162 B. Demographic Characteristics of Legal and Illegal Immigrants 164 C. The Impact 170 Earnings of Immigrants 171 Bracero Program 178 European Guest Workers 181 D. Summary and Conclusion 185 Chapter VI - Illegal Immigration: Social Issues 188 A. Settlement Patterns of Migrants 188 B. The Welfare Issue 192 General Assistance 194 Supplementary Security Income 195 Medicaid 195 Aid to Families with Dependent Children 196 Food Stamps 196 Social Security 197 Unemployment Insurance 198 C. Social and Community Impact 201 Population Growth 201 INS Enforcement 205 Aliens' Rights Organizations 206 Anti-Alien Sentiment 209 Federal-State-Local Relations 211 D. Conclusions and Recommendations 214 iii Page Chapter VII - Dilemmas for the Future 217 A. Control 218 B. Information 221 C. Foreign Policy 224 D. Growth 227 E. Research Recommendations 229 Chapter VIII - Conclusions and Major Recommendations 235 A. Conclusions 235 B. Major Recommendations 240 Bibliography 245 Appendices Appendix A - Information Listing of Illegal Alien Impacts Appendix B - Task Force Members iv Preliminary Report Domestic Council Committee on Illegal Aliens Executive Summary Introduction Apprehensions of illegal aliens each year are almost double the number of people who enter the United States legally. Illegal aliens, traditionally from Mexico and concentrated in the Southwest, are from many nations and are found in many areas of the country. The Domestic Council committee was established to undertake a comprehensive review of the issue and its implications. This preliminary report provides an overview of the policy questions, assesses current programs and knowledge and presents recommendations for further action. Chapter I - U.S. Immigration Law and Policy During the early years of our history immigration was unrestricted. In the late 1800's certain classes, such as convicts, or national groups, such as Chinese, were excluded. In 1921 numerical limits were introduced based on the concept of national origin quotas. A major recodification in 1952 established three basic premises for immigration: family reunification, protection of jobs for the domestic labor force, and control of alien visitors. However the national origin V quota was maintained until 1965 when amendments replaced it with numerical hemispheric ceilings and introduced a fourth premise, that of asylum for refugees. Immigration from the Eastern Hemisphere is held at 170,000 per year with a 20,000 per country limit. Admission is granted through a preference system which grants 74% of the places to relatives of U.S. citizens and permanent aliens. The Western Hemisphere ceiling of 120,000 was added at the last moment by Congress and operates on a first-come, first-serve basis with no preference system or per country limits. * Labor certification by the Department of Labor is required for all non-relative classes from both hemispheres. The 1965 law is the statute which governs immigration today and has, since 1965, had two major effects: (1) Immigration has increased by more than 100% over the 1924-1965 period; and (2) there has been a shift away from European groups toward Asian and Latin American groups. The worker importation provisions of the law apply to both immigrants and temporary workers but they play a minimal role in the present policy scheme. Canada and Australia, the two nations most similar to the U.S. in immigration matters, weigh employment impact considerations heavily in their criteria for granting immigrant status. * P.L. 94-571, signed on October 20, 1976, alters these pro- visions by applying the current preferance system of selection for the Eastern Hemisphere to the Western Hemisphere as well. This report was written and approved prior to that action. vi Chapter II - Illegal Immigration: The Global Picture The principal source of immigration to the United States currently is Mexico, Jamaica, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, and China. Demand for immigration is intense in these countries and several have waiting lists of 2 years or more. These countries are also among the major illegal alien source countries. The source countries have similar characteristics in three respects: rapid economic expansion, high population growth rates, and links with the U.S. This pattern will apply to increasing numbers of countries in the future and creates stong push forces on individuals to migrate. These push forces combine with the pull of available jobs and low risk of detection in the United States to produce illegal migration. The phenomenon of migration occurs in streams according to certain principles among which the difficulty of intervening obstacles and development of counterstreams are prominent. The process is not responsive to legal limits but rather to its own self-sustaining momentum. Policy will have to address the fundamental principles of push-pull and migration to be successful. Illegal immigration is from many countries but Mexico is a major source for reasons of both history and geography. vii The governments of the U.S. and Mexico have established bilateral discussions on the issue. However, the illegal migration issue has not been a priority concern to policy- makers in the governance of our relations with other source nations. Actions discouraging illegal entry may compete with other foreign policy goals, e.g. tourism. However, illegal immigration merits a far higher and more generalized level of attention in our conduct of foreign affairs. Chapter III - Law Enforcement There is a long history of U.S.-Mexico border enforcement in immigration matters. Thus the majority of our enforcement effort is directed at this aspect of illegal immigration. Illegal entrants from other nations are a relatively recent development that requires significantly different techniques. The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) has primary responsibility for immigration enforcement. It is aided by the Department of State which issues visas overseas. Prevention of illegal entry is the agency priority and is done through inspection of individuals at ports of entry and policing our land and borders between ports. INS also carries on investigative activities within our borders viii against illegals who escape detection at entry or overstay authorized entry. Recent court decisions have limited INS' latitude in the interior, making prevention more important. Several other agencies have enforcement roles which are related to illegal immigration. They are the Social Security Administration, Internal Revenue Service, U.S. Customs Service, and the Wage and Hour division of the Department of Labor. The Committee has evaluated current and proposed additional means of interagency cooperation among them and INS and the Department of State. Experience has shown that cooperation on enforcement matters is difficult when the agency is service oriented such as the Social Security Administration. However, much can be done to increase the effectiveness of enforcement with the tools presently available both among and within the agencies concerned. In addition to improved interagency efforts, certain disincentives to illegal migration are needed which require legislation. The disincentives are designed to lessen the economic pull which draws illegals to the U.S., discourage the use of the law to gain time and establish equity for immigration benefits, increase enforcement authorities to aid in capturing smugglers and the like, and streamline the law of anachronistic provisions which detract from more important tasks. ix Chapter IV - The Illegal Alien: A Soft Portrait Judging the impact of illegal aliens on our society requires information which is extremely sketchy at best. Data deficiencies center on the difficulty of counting and describing a clandestine population and the unrepresenta- tiveness of using predominantly apprehended, Mexican illegals because they are readily accessible for research purposes. Many studies were reviewed and a composite description of the illegal includes personal characteristics by nationality, origin within native country, age, sex, education, marital status, language ability, and motivation; characteristics of entry by entry without inspection, visa abuse and others; characteristics of residence by location, mobility, and wage remissions; and characterisitcs of work place. The major points of agreement are that the principal impact of illegals is in the labor market, language ability is an important determinant in the type of employment, significant percentages of earnings are returned to the illegals' native country, and Mexican illegal migration may be substantially different from that from other source countries. Chapter V - Domestic Impact of Illegal Aliens: The Issues of Employment and Earnings Because research on illegal aliens is in an embryonic state, an exposition of domestic impact remains tentative. X Among several perceptions concerning the economic impact of illegals are: (a) low skilled illegal alien workers compete with low skilled natives depressing their wages and tending to increase earnings of skilled workers and owners of capital; (b) illegal aliens create unemployment by taking vacant jobs; and (c) illegal aliens take more from the system in services than they contribute in taxes. The data currently available cannot provide answers. At best it indicates certain directions. Useful information may be obtained from analyses on the foreign born and their impact in combination with what is known about illegals. Earnings of the foreign born rise with tenure in the U.S. and after 13 or more years are substantially the same as natives. This implies that if undetected, illegals would have the same profile as natives and therefore would not remain a cheap labor source. The analysis does not hold for Hispanics, an important illegal alien characteristic, nor does it incorporate the illegality factor as a barrier to upward mobility. The termination of the bracero program showed that sudden removal of alien labor opened jobs which natives took at improved wages while income to owners decreased and consumer prices for their products increased. xi European countries have made extensive use of temporary foreign workers who have made positive contributions to economic growth but who have not returned as planned and create problems during times of economic slowdown. Chapter VI - Illegal Immigration: Social Issues Migrants moving into new areas seem to resettle according to four stages. First, young, unmarried males predominate followed by married men in the second stage. In the third stage, single males marry and marrieds send for their families and settle permanently attracting supporting populations of employers, businesses, etc. in the final stage. Restrictions to keep migration temporary rarely work and the last stage is frequently marked by tension with the native population. Different parts of the U.S. may be experiencing different stages of settlement at this time. Within the context of settlement, the welfare issue or use of income transfer programs by illegals has received much attention. These programs are examined and with the possible exception of food stamps, which restrict eligibility on the basis of citizenship, illegals are unlikely to qualify based on age, sex and other personal characteristics. Definitive judgment must await better information on the characteristics of illegals and the settlement stage (s) of various groups and areas. xii Several other social issues raised by illegal immigration are population growth, INS enforcement, anti-alien sentiment and federal-state-local relations. Immigration is one of the major aspects of our population growth as a nation. If the net number of illegals is at least equal to our net immigration, the numerical impact is a central factor in growth. INS enforcement causes community resentment and hostility in many areas, particularly in ethnic communities. The greatest degree of support is to be found with employer targeted enforcement; serious difficulties accompany residence based efforts. This potential for strife is also apparent in anti-illegal alien organizing in some large urban areas. The federal government has not worked closely with other units of government on illegal alien issues although these are the levels at which immediate impacts are keenly felt. The existence of underground communities which actively avoid government presents significant problems which require cooperation and coordination to prevent. Chapter VII - Dilemmas for the Future Beyond the issues and topics discussed in the report, immigration matters lead to large philosophical and policy questions for the society which will only be answered over xiii time. Some of the larger areas within which immigration is or should be an important component are government control over individuals in law enforcement matters, research methodologies and the limitations of information, long- range foreign policy priorities and imperatives, and the limits of and potential for growth. The conclusions of the report and recommendations make up Chapter VIII. xiv - 1 - PRELIMINARY REPORT Domestic Council Committee on Illegal Aliens Introduction Immigration to the United States is intended to be governed by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. Under the provisions of the Act, approximately 400,000 aliens are admitted annually for permanent residence. Actual immigration, however, bears little resemblance to the program administered under the law. In 1975, 766,600 aliens who had entered or remained in the U.S. illegally were located, about twice the number permitted to enter by law. It is believed that the number of illegal aliens residing and working in the United States is considerably in excess of the number apprehended and can be expected to increase. Historically, apprehended illegal entrants to the United States have been largely Mexican in origin concen- trated on the Southwest border in rural areas doing agricultural work. Increasingly in the last decade concentrations of illegal aliens are found in industralized urban as well as rural areas throughout the country. Metropolitan centers such as New York and Chicago report illegal populations numbering in the millions although hard numbers which are reliable do not exist. In addition, the illegal population, while predominantly Hispanic, is from many parts of the world. - 2 - We are a nation of immigrants and have throughout our history been the most hospitable nation in the world for immigrants. Immigrants have and continue to contribute much to this country individually and in the development of our social and political values. We are also a nation of laws with a commitment to systems which enforce those laws fairly and effectivley. A growing influx of unauthorized immigrants has important implications for the United States. The overwhelming majority of illegal aliens who come to the United States are in search of economic opportunity. Many compete for jobs of interest to native workers. Others accept employment for which Americans are seemingly unavail- able. All, due to their illegal status, live in fear of apprehension. As a result, they are susceptible to economic exploitation and other forms of abuse, and often live in an invisible subculture outside the boundaries of law and legitimate institutions. Because illegal aliens are in a sense invisible, the issue is not only difficult to anlayze as a practical matter but is controversial to acknowledge for policy purposes in contexts other than law enforcement. Furthermore, illegal migration in times of prosperity tends to be viewed as a handmaiden of economic growth but it becomes transformed into a threat in times of economic downturn. Recent awareness of - 3 - the finite nature of resources and of population issues has tended to render the cyclical nature of a concern over illegal aliens an ongoing concern. In January, 1975, President Ford, established a Domestic Council Committee on Illegal Aliens. Chaired by the Attorney General, the committee consists of the Secretaries of Agriculture; Commerce; Health, Education and Welfare; Labor; Treasury; State; and the Office of Management and Budget with the Council of Economic Advisors acting in a technical advisory capacity. In January, 1976, the Attorney General reorganized the committee into five task forces as follows: Immigration Law and Policy - Chair: Immigration and Naturalization Service Economic and Labor Market Impact of Illegal Aliens - Chair: Department of Labor Social and Community Impact on Illegal Aliens - Chair: Department of Health, Education and Welfare Enforcement - Chair: Immigration and Naturalization Service 1/ Foreign Relations - Chair: Department of State The task forces are chaired by senior officials selected by the respective Department Secretaries and have functioned as working committees. The task force chairmen comprise a Steering Committee which has provided coordination between full committee meetings. 1/ This task force. is also known as the Interagency Committee on Mexican Migration to the U.S. which had been previously constituted pursuant to meetings between President Ford and President Echeverria of Mexico in 1974. The scope of its activities as originally defined has been broadened for purposes of the Domestic Council inquiry. - 4 - The task forces were charged with undertaking a comprehensive review of the illegal alien issue and were asked to submit reports of their work by June 1, 1976. Those reports have been combined and integrated to create this preliminary report of the Domestic Council Committee. The report has a fourfold purpose: - to provide an overview of the issues and policy questions involved in a comprehensive examination of the illegal alien issue; - to catalogue and assess current efforts to deal with the phenomenon of illegal immigration; - to catalogue and assess current knowledge about the implications of illegal immigration for the needs and interests of the United States; and - to formulate recommendations outlining ways in which the government might respond. The terminology used in the report is as follows: illegal aliens are citizens of other countries who are not authorized to be in the United States. Basically there are two categories of illegal aliens. Some illegal aliens were never authorized to be in the U.S. and possess no immigration documents. Such persons are known as EWI's (Entry Without Inspection) because they entered the country surreptitiously. The second category of illegal aliens is individuals who originally entered the U.S. legally and - 5 - in possession of a visa issued by a U.S. Consul overseas but have since violated or overstayed the terms of the visa. Such persons are known as visa abusers. They may have obtained the visa through misrepresentation of their intentions, they may have changed plans for a variety of reasons after having arrived in the U.S., or they may have obtained counterfeit documents and escaped detection at the port of entry. The method of entry and reason for being illegal are important to certain aspects of this report and will be treated as such. However in many contexts the terms illegal alien, visa abuser, undocumented worker, illegal immigrant, clandestine migrant and unauthorized worker are used interchangeably. Conversely, the terms used to describe persons legally admitted to the U.S. for permanent residence who are eligible to work are permanent resident alien, immigrant, legal immigrant, or commuter. Apprehension figures will be cited throughout the report and are one important index of the existence of an illegal alien problem. It is important to note that apprehension figures denote the occurrence of an event, i.e., they are a workload measurement, not a total number of people. Many apprehended illegals are known repeaters. Thus the number of people apprehended each year by INS is less by an unknown proportion than the number of apprehensions. - 6 - CHAPTER I UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION LAW AND POLICY A. HISTORICAL REVIEW OF U.S. IMMIGRATION POLICY The history of Immigration in the United States is a chronicle of the conflicting philosophies of economics, sociology, politics, and of compassion and prejudice. Immigration to the Colonies had its beginnings in the early 1600's when a few hundred colonists established settlements at Jamestown and Plymouth. Some two and a half centuries later, more than 10 million more had followed the original vanguard. In 1866 the Statue of Liberty was dedicated and still bears an inscription familiar to most of us: "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore, Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me: I lift my lamp beside the golden door." The spirit of that inscription has in the past generally, though not always, reflected the viewpoint of the American people. Period of Unrestricted Immigration Despite some misgivings, the general attitude of the original 13 Colonies was to encourage immigration. Such encouragement was not motivated merely by a spirit of altruism, for immigrants represented a solution to a chronic labor shortage, the means of promoting land settlement of a sparsely populated country and its resources. - 7 - During the first 100 years following the founding of our country, there was little legislation affecting immigration. The act of March 2, 1819 marked the beginning of so-called steerage legislation which sought to improve living conditions on ships bringing immigrants to the United States. In 1875 a statute barred the admission of convicts and prostitutes. This was followed in 1882 by the adoption of the first general immigration statute barring the entry of convicts, mental incompetents, and persons likely to become public charges. In the same year, the Chinese Exclusion Act became law and remained in effect until it was repealed in 1943. In 1885 and 1887 Congress passed the contract labor laws, which were designed to end the practice of importing cheap foreign labor under labor contracts which adversely affected the labor market in the United States. Period of Qualitative Controls These individual immigration laws were codified in 1891 and began a period of qualitative controls. The act increased the number of classes of aliens who were to be excluded, including polygamists, those convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude, paupers, and those afflicted with a dangerous disease. Insane persons, epileptics, professional beggars, and anarchists were added soon thereafter. Aliens who had entered illegally were to be deported within one year. - 8 - From 1900-1910, over four million immigrants were admitted primarily from southern and eastern Europe in contrast to previous migrations from northern Europe. The surging tide of immigration during this period created uneasiness, largely due to economic uncertainty. In 1917 Congress passed another comprehensive revision of the immigration laws which included an English literacy test, excluded Asians, and again provided for the deporta- tion of aliens who had entered the United States illegally. Period of Qualitative and Quantitative Controls Until 1921, immigration legislation had been concerned solely with qualitative factors relating to immigrants, and no restriction had been placed on the number of entrants. After World War I, immigration began to increase, leading to demands for restrictions to dam the expected flood of immigrants from the war-devastated countries of Europe. A lagging economy and an increasingly isolationist mood in the country strengthened these demands. The ensuing Quota Law of 1921 represented a drastic change in American immigration policy. Introducing numerical limitations on immigration, the act limited the number of aliens of any nationality entering the United States to three percent of foreign-born persons of that nationality who lived in the United States in 1910. A ceiling of 350,000 was placed on the total number of aliens who could be admitted as immigrants during any one year. - 9 - The policy of numerical restrictions became permanent through the enactment of the Immigration Act of 1924 designed to supplement the qualitative restrictions of the 1917 act. A national origins formula was adopted which eventually based a quota for each nationality on the number of persons of that national origin in the United States in 1920. Under this formula the number of persons coming from southern and eastern Europe fell sharply. A ceiling of approximately 150,000 was placed on the number of quota immigrants who were permitted to enter each year. However, the act also established certain classes of non-quota aliens able to enter in unrestricted numbers. These included natives of Western Hemisphere countries, alien wives and children of American citizens and returning lawful residents. In addition, the act required each intending immigrant to obtain a visa abroad from a United States consular officer and a sponsor in the U.S. Persons entering in violation of the visa or quota requirements could be deported without time limitation. To exclude Asians, another provision barred ineligible aliens from acquiring citizenship. The basic economic and sociological premise of the 1924 act was that more than 150,000 immigrants per year might be detrimental to the country. The next premise was - 10- that maintaining the national origins make-up of the existing population by rationing the quotas in that proportion was a desirable end. Compassion gave special status to the wives and children of United States citizens, even though this might distort the mix. Other considerations, perhaps political, permitted immigration of Western Hemisphere natives without regard to numbers or to the percentage of such people in the make-up of the population. Prejudice doubtless excluded Asians. Although the Immigration Acts of 1917 and 1924 remained substantially unchanged until 1952, some restrictions were relaxed by humanitarian considerations related to the flight of refugees from Communist countries in the post-World War II era. 2/ The War Brides Act of 1945 allowed admission of 118,000 aliens, and the Fiances Act of 1946 brought 5,000 aliens. The Displaced Persons Act of 1948 authorized admission of about 400,000 persons unable to remain in Germany, Italy and Austria. The Refugee Relief Act of 1953 permitted 214,000 refugees to be admitted in three and a half years. Emergency measures for Hungarian and Cuban refugees followed. Most recently Vietnamese refugees were paroled into the United States. -11 - B. CURRENT IMMIGRATION LAW Although amended, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 is still the basic statute dealing with immigration and nationality. It not only recodified existing law but made many changes. Built upon three basic premises -- family reunification, protecting available jobs for the domestic labor force, and control of alien visitors -- the act nevertheless maintained the national origin quota system. However, it also provided for: (1) permanent, limited immigration according to preferences for certain relatives of United States citizens and resident aliens and for immigrants with special skills; (2) visa requirements for visitors; (3) grounds for exclusion of undesirable aliens; (4) a double screening barrier requiring both a visa and port of entry admission; and (5) deportation grounds, procedures and relief from deportation. The basic underlying selection factor of the 1924 act was the national origin quota, not occupational status or relationship to persons already residing in the United States. Criticized with some vigor from the very beginning, by 1952 opposition to the national origins quota system had become - 12- quite vociferous. But the opposition was not sufficient to prevent enactment of a new law, over Presidential veto, with the national origin quota provision intact. 1965 Amendments By 1965 the major political issue concerning immigration was the national origins quota system and its validity as a basis for selecting immigrants to the United States. In 1963, amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 were introduced which brought the national origins quota system into question. On October 3, 1965 the amendments were signed into law and comprise the system under which immigration operates today. The 1965 amendments abolished national origin quotas as the basis for admission to the United States and substituted family relationship and needed talents or skills as the prerequisites for immigration. The visitor and deportation related features of the 1952 act were retained as was a revised form of the preference system. The major provisions of the act are as follows: 1. Reunification of families is the foremost consideration for gaining immigration admissibility. The closer the family relationship to a U.S. citizen or permanent resident alien, the higher the preference. - 13- 2. Preference for admission is also available for individuals who possess certain special talents or skills: a) professionals or those with exceptional ability in the arts or sciences; and b) skilled or unskilled workers who can fill specific labor needs in short supply. Individuals admitted under these provisions must obtain a labor certification from the Secretary of Labor. 3. Annual ceilings of 170,000 for Eastern Hemisphere natives and for the first time, 120,000 for Western Hemisphere natives were established. The preference system as outlined below applies to Eastern Hemisphere immigration. Western Hemisphere immigration is first come -- first serve. * 4. Spouses and children of U.S. citizens and parents of citizens over 21 years of age are exempt from the numerical ceilings. 5. For the Eastern Hemisphere, a foreign state limitation of 20,000 visas per annum was established. 6. Entry of a specified number of refugees annually was authorized in place of separate, special legislative enactments. *See footnote, p. vi. - 14 - 7. Labor certification controls were strengthened to control the influx of skilled and unskilled foreign workers. The new preference system went into effect on December 1, 1965, while the system of hemispheric ceilings was not effective until July 1, 1968. (See Charts 1 and 2.) Considerable attention was given to the nature of the new preference system. Prior to 1965, skilled workers and professionals who had pre-arranged employment were classified as first preference immigrants and allotted fifty percent of each national quota. This preference was used infrequently and the emphasis upon skilled labor over relatives was largely reversed by the 1965 amendments which decreased reliance on imported workers. Three of the first five preference classes are allotted to relatives of U.S. citizens. The percentage of the total limitation accorded to the relative classes rose from 50% to 74%. Only professionals are placed ahead of any of the relative classes. Moreover, an additional 6% of the limitation was set aside for the new refugee preference, leaving only 20% for workers and their families (10% for professionals; 10% for skilled or unskilled workers). The worker preferences cannot benefit from "fall down" - unused portions of higher preference allocations -- whereas the relative preference can, and workers, both professional and nonprofessional, are subjected to an affirmative labor certification requirement. - 15 - CHART 1 LIBRARY NUMERICAL LIMITATIONS ON IMMIGRATION VISAS Some form of numerical limitation has been imposed on immigration into the United States since 1921, although certain classes of immigrants have traditionally been able to obtain visas outside of these limitations. Outlined below are the basic elements of the amendments of the Immigration and Nationality Act by the Act of October 3, 1965. Act of October 3, 1965 I. Classes not subject to the numerical limita- (2) Second preference: Spouse and unmar- tions: ried sons and daughters of an alien lawfully (1) Spouse and children of U.S. citizens and admitted for permanent residence. parents of citizens over the age of 21; (Sec. 20 percent plus any not required for first 201(b)). preference. (2) Returning residents; (Sec. 101 (a) (27) (3) Third preference: Members of the pro- (B)). fessions and scientists and artists of excep- (3) Certain former U.S. citizens; (Sec. 101 tional ability. (a) (27) (C)) Not more than 10 percent. (4) Ministers of religion and the spouse and children of such immigrants; (Sec. 101 (a) (4) Fourth preference: Married sons and (27) (D)) daughters of U.S. citizens. (5) Certain employees or former employees 10 percent plus any not required for the of the U.S. Government abroad and the first three preferences. accompanying spouse and children of such immigrants; (Sec. 101 (a) (27) (E)). (5) Fifth preference: Brothers and sisters II. Numerical limitations to which other ap- of U.S. citizens. plicants are subject: 24 percent plus any not required for the (1) Overall numerical limitation: 170,000 first four preferences. per annum; (6) Sixth preference: Skilled and unskilled (2) National limit: 20,000; workers in occupations for which labor is in short supply in the United States. Not more than 10 percent. (7) Seventh preference: Refugees to whom conditional entry or adjustment of status (3) Dependent area limitation Each colony may be granted. or other dependency may use not more than Not more than 6 percent. 1 percent of the total of visa numbers avail- (8) Nonpreference: Any applicant not en- able to the mother country; titled to one of the above preferences. (4) Quarterly limitation: Not more than Any numbers not required for preference 45,000 in any of the first three quarters applicants. of the fiscal year. (9) The spouse and child of any preference applicant may be classified within the same preference if a visa is not otherwise im- III. Preference system (percentage applied mediately available. against 170,000 limitation) : IV. Immigrants born in any independent coun- (1) First preference: Unmarried sons and try of the Western Hemisphere or in the daughters of U.S. citizens. Canal Zone and the spouse and children of Not more than 20 percent. such immigrants are subject to a numerical limitation of 120,000 per annum; (Sec. 21 (e), Act of Oct. 3, 1965). - 16- CHART 2 EASTERN AND WESTERN HEMISPHERE PROVISIONS OF THE LW* The differences in the Immigration and Nationality Act relating to immigration from the Eastern Hemisphere and the Western Hemisphere are outlined below: Eastern Hemisphere Western Hemisphere 1. Numerical limitations: 170.000 per annum; 1. Numerical limitations: 120,000 per annum not more than 20,000 per foreign state. limitation became effective July 1, 1968; no foreign state limitation. (This limitation is imposed by the 1965 Act, not by the Immi- gration and Nationality Act.) 2. As a selective mechanism to enable distribu- 2. No provision has been made for a preference tion of the numbers to the immigrants de- system. sired, a system of seven preference classes exists: Four (1. 2, 4, and 5) based on relation- ship to U.S. citizens or resident aliens, two (3 and 6) based on need for labor, and one (7) for refugees. 3. Applicability of section 212 (a) (14) is ex- 3. Section 212 (a) (14) expressly applies to all plicitly restricted to applicants within the applicants from the Western Hemisphere 3d, 6th. and nonpreference categories, thus other than parents. spouses, or children of exempting sons and daughters (married or U.S. citizens and resident aliens. unmarried) and brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens. 4. Adjustment of status in the United States 4. Adjustment of status in the United States from nonimmigrant to that of a permanent from nonimmigrant to that of a permanent resident may be obtained. resident is not permitted, although the Act of November 2, 1966, permits the adjust- ment of Cuban refugees. 5. Parents of resident aliens (not being entitled 5. Parents of resident aliens are exempt from to a preference) are subject to section 212 the provisions of section 212 (a) (14). (a) (14). 6. Immigrants may not enter from contiguous 6. No prohibition on entry from contiguous territory without first residing therein for 2 territory. years unless they have arrived there on a transportation line which has an appropri- ate contract with the Attorney General for this purpose. * See Footnote, p. vi. - 17 - Application of the amendments to the Western Hemisphere does not appear to have been systematically considered. Prior to 1963 immigration from the Western Hemisphere had never been numerically limited, nor were proposals to establish limitations ever seriously considered. Thus, there had also never been a selection process with the system operating largely on a first-come, first-serve basis. The proposal to limit numerically Western Hemisphere natives originated with the Congress. Its inclusion in the bill apparently resulted from compromises viewed as necessary to gain abolition of the national origins quota system. Although a Western Hemisphere ceiling was established, the law fails to provide any system of preferences or foreign state limitations for Western Hemisphere immigration* Subsequent to enactment of the amendments, it was contended that the labor certification provision would serve to regulate immigration from the Western Hemisphere, rendering a preference system or foreign state limitations unnecessary. The evolution of demand for immigration from the Western Hemisphere has proven this assertion to have been incorrect. The abolition of the national origins quota system has had two significant results. 1. Average annual immigration since 1965 has risen to 390,329 from an average annual figure of *See Footnote, p. vi. - 18 - 190,447 during the 1924 to 1965 period, an increase of more than 100%. Although an annual number of 290,000 is authorized by the hemispheric ceiling provisions of the law, the additional 100,000+ result from the exempt categories of parents, spouses and children. 2. Immigrant source countries have changed resulting in a basic ethnic shift away from European groups toward Asian and Latin American groups. Worker Importation Provisions The great majority of post-1965 immigrants have entered the U.S. on the basis of family ties to U.S. residents. Thus they have been selected independent of labor market considerations. Nonetheless one goal of the current law is to allow entrance for needed workers both on a permanent and temporary basis. This goal is an important aspect of a discussion of illegal immigration and is therefore examined more fully in this section. Permanent Immigrant Workers Under current law 3/ certification by the Secretary of Labor is required prior to issuance of an immigrant visa for all third, sixth and non-preference immigrants from the Eastern Hemisphere and immigrants from the 3/ Section 212 (a) (14) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. - 19 - Western Hemisphere except parents, spouses or children of U.S. citizens or resident aliens. These categories potentially comprise 10-20% of U.S. immigrants each year. To issue a labor certification the Secretary of Labor must certify that (a) there are not sufficient workers in the U.S. at the alien's destination able, willing and qualified to perform the job, and (b) employ- ment of the alien will not adversely affect wages and working conditions of similarly employed U. S. workers. Thus certification on a case-by-case basis is required to allow an alien to enter. This is a direct reversal of the pro- visions of the 1952 act under which a certification was required to keep an alien out. The Department of Labor has published two occupational schedules. Schedule A -- a precertified list -- consists of occupations generally in short supply nationwide. Schedule B -- the noncertification list -- includes low-skill occupations requiring little or no education, training or experience for satisfactory job performance and for which domestic workers are available or can be readily trained. An alien whose category of employment appears on Schedule A qualifies for a certification without a job offer or DOL review. A labor certification without a job offer can also be granted to aliens who are members of professions or persons of exceptional ability in the sciences or arts. - 20 - A specific job offer is a prerequisite for all other aliens who request certification. The alien's application must be filed by the prospective employer or the employer's representative at the State Employment Service (ES) office serving the area where the alien is to be employed. The ES office forwards the application together with pertinent information on the availability of domestic workers and the prevailing wages and working conditions to the appro- priate DOL regional office for a determination leading to the granting or denial of certification. Department of Labor estimates supported by independent research, 4/ indicate that only 12 to 15 percent (in FY 1974 less than 10 percent) of the approximately 400,000 immigrants admitted annually receive labor certifications. Moreover, of those relatively few, over half (57%) change occupations -- not just jobs -- within two years or less. Thus less than 5 percent of the immigrants are meaningfully screened for their labor market impact, although the majority (65%) of each year's 400,000 immigrants enter the labor market. Furthermore, in 1968, one in every 10 aliens applying for certification was already in the U.S. By 1972, 4/ North, David S., Alien Workers: A Study of the Labor Certification Program, U.S. Department of Labor, August, 1971. - 21 - this proportion has increased to 4 in 10. Most already held the job for which certification was requested further diluting the effectiveness of the certification. The present program has obvious shortcomings which attach both to the goal stated in the legislation and the actual workings of the program: 1. Approximately 1.7 million people join the civilian labor force annually while less than 40,000 (10% of new immigrants) have labor certifications. Sixty-five percent or about 260,000 of new immigrants enter the labor market. 2. A negative labor certification decision does not decrease the number of immigrant workers arriving. It simply stops a parti- cular immigrant from coming to a particular place in the United States. His place on the visa waiting list will be filled by someone else, probably destined to work elsewhere. Thus there is no impact on the macro labor markets. 3. Impact on micro labor markets is minimal since there is no control over the worker after he arrives and 57% change occupations quickly. 4. The post-1965 labor certification process has not changed the distribution, among broad occupational categories, of immigrants entering the U.S. for employment. 5. In the significant number of cases where the alien applicants for labor certification are already here and working, the labor certification decision has no real impact. - 22 - 6. In cases where the worker is not here or not permitted to remain, timing is important. In the Western Hemisphere, backlogs caused by statutory limitations on numbers, currently result in delays of two years to secure a visa. Even in the up to date areas of the Eastern Hemisphere, it takes several months to gain admission. During this period the employer does not have the worker he claims he needs. Further, the labor market situation may have reversed by the time the worker arrives, and there may then be available resident workers with requisite skills. Temporary Nonimmigrant Workers Each year approximately 6 million aliens are admitted temporarily into the United States for a variety of reasons and under many types of visas. About 60,000 or 1% enter solely for employment in the U.S. labor market, i.e., as entertainers, agricultural and woods workers, athletes, construction workers, visiting professors, artists, and the like. The visa designations are H-1 for aliens of outstanding merit and ability (about 15,000/per year), H-3 for industrial trainees (about 5,000/per year), and H-2 for the other temporary workers (about 40,000/per year). 5/ Only the H-2 temporary worker is subject to a DOL certification. The Immigration and Nationality Act is clear as to the intent of Congress in making the temporary "importing" of any alien as a nonimmigrant contingent upon the approval by 5/ Another category of nonimmigrant workers, the L's, comprises intracompany international transferees and their families. This group represented over 22,000 persons in FY 1975. - 23 - the Attorney General of a petition of the "importing employer." Congress provides that the alien to be imported under the provisions of section 101 (a) (15) (H) (ii), be coming "temporarily to the United States to perform temporary services or labor, if unemployed persons capable of performing such service or labor cannot be found in the United States." An employer who wishes to import temporary workers, therefore, must make an effort to recruit United States workers prior to seeking to import temporary workers. The Department of Labor's role in connection with the temporary employment of alien workers in the United States is advisory only. The Attorney General has determined that DOL is the appropriate agency of the government for consul- tation regarding the importation of an H-2 temporary alien worker. Decisions authorizing entrance of H-1 -- aliens of "distinguished merit and ability" -- and H-3 -- trainees -- visitors are made by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) without consultation with DOL. DOL either certifies that qualified U.S. workers are not available and that the employment of the H-2 alien will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of U.S. workers that are similarly employed, or provides notice that such a certi- fication cannot be made. - 24 - Administrative appeal from a DOL refusal to certify is to the INS whose regulations provide that upon DOL notification that a certification cannot be made, the petitioning employer may present evidence that qualified persons in the United States are not available and that DOL employment policies have been observed. All such evidence is then considered by INS in adjudicating the petition. Finally, the DOL advisory opinion accompanying a non- immigrant visa petition to accord an alien worker H-2 classification requires a determination as to "availability" and "adverse effect." DOL has interpreted these criteria as follows: 1. Availability A prospective employer who is unsuccessful in his attempt to obtain United States workers must present detailed evidence of the attempts made and the number of responses received, in what manner the United States workers did not meet the requirements offered or were otherwise unwilling or unable to accept the employment. When an employer places a job offer with the State Employment Service (ES) to test the local market for availability, the offer must be for the same job and the same terms and conditions as those offered an alien. However, the ES is only one source of job applicants, involved in a small percentage of job placement in the U.S. economy, and does not actively deal in placements in all occupations in the economy. The fact that it cannot produce qualified - 25 - workers for a given occupation at a single time and place therefore cannot serve as proof that U.S. workers are not available from other usual sources of recruitment. 2. Adverse effect DOL makes the adverse effect determination from the contents of the entire application, viewed in the light of labor market information, special circumstances in the industry, parti- cular organization, or particular occupation, existence of labor disputes, discrimination, misrepresentation, or conflict with provisions of Federal, State, or local laws. Adverse effects upon wages and working conditions of workers similarly employed may include hiring aliens during strikes; hiring aliens of below prevailing skills at below prevailing wages; hiring aliens for jobs involving a variety of skills, high and low, and paying at the lower skills rate; excessive turnover of employees in the establishment; excessive percentage of alien employees in the establishment; or hiring of aliens for jobs for which they are not qualified or for which they cannot obtain a required license. A wage or salary offer at less than pre- vailing wages is an important aspect of adverse effect. In determining the prevailing wage, the content of the basic job to be performed is considered -- not for whom it is to be performed. As the prevailing wage, DOL applies that wage found to be prevailing for those similarly employed in the same area, without distinction as to whether the job is in a public or private organization, in a union or nonunion situation, or in a large or small establishment. In addition, DOL takes into account whether employment offered an alien temporary worker is temporary or permanent because the availability of United States workers in a given occupation can vary considerably depending on whether employment is permanent or temporary. The nature of the industry for which alien temporary - 26 - workers are sought is the principal determinant. Coal mining, for example, is a permanent industry and the occupations associated with it are permanent. In other industries, employers cross- train the work force to handle peak demands, or upgrade the work force to fill in behind highly skilled workers and temporarily fill in behind them from among local workers; there are also peak or cyclical needs in some industries which can be met only by the temporary employment of temporary workers. Viewed together the labor certification and temporary worker programs involve approximately 80,000 aliens each year. One-half are permanent and the other are temporary. Since about 400,000 individuals enter as immigrants and about 6 million as visitors each year, it is fair to conclude that the worker importation provisions of the current law play a minimal role in the present scheme of immigration policy. C. IMMIGRATION POLICIES OF OTHER NATIONS Few other nations have formalized immigration systems. Some, for example Israel and South Africa, have such specific goals as to be largely irrelevant for our purposes. Those which most nearly approximate the history and policies of the U.S. are Australia and Canada. Their approach offers the basis for some helpful comparative analysis. Canadian and Australian attitudes towards persons seeking admission as immigrants are substantially different from our own. Both countries take an active interest in recruiting, assessing and assisting prospective immigrants. - 27 - Both maintain substantial numbers of officers with wide discretionary powers in foreign countries for the purpose of interviewing. The personal quality of the prospective immigrant weighs heavily in the final assessment. Qualita- tive selection criteria for immigration in both Canada and Australia are so broadly stated as to demand expansion and development through administrative processes. Although the grounds for exclusion are to protect the security and economic well-being of the importing country and the health and welfare of its people, in practice both of these countries have left to the administrators the power and authority to tailor the qualitative selection procedures to best suit their changing national needs. Our own system of accepting immigrants inclines to be almost mechanistic by comparison. If the alien has no criminal or subversive record, meets the labor certification requirement, will not become a public charge, and is not within any other excludable class, an immigrant visa will normally be issued. How well an applicant may personally fit into life in the United States does not concern us, nor does his attitude towards migration, or his ability to speak English. If the alien meets all the visa requirements, it is irrelevant whether adequate housing and medical facilities will be available in the city to which he is migrating, whether his children will have adequate schooling, - 28 - and whether he intends to learn English. No consideration is given to a host of other indicators that point to the ultimate adaptation, integration and happiness of the intending immigrant. In contrast, Australia and Canada are very much concerned with such matters. Canada Prevailing numerical limitations in Canada in any given year are determined by the Department of Manpower and Immigration. Since 1967 Canada has had a system of assignment of a variable number of units in certain qualifying categories with a maximum of one hundred units. The alien must earn at least 50 units if he is an independent applicant, unrelated to a Canadian citizen or resident. A sponsored dependent is not subject to the unit scheme if he comes by virtue of relationship to a spouse or other close family member and immigrates solely on the basis of such relationship. Prospective immigrants having other relatives in Canada are rated partially on the unit assessment scale and also receive credits for the relationship. There are several aspects of the Canadian system that are of interest. Qualifications considered are not only the demand for the prospective immigrant's occupation, but also his level of skill, whether he has pre-arranged employment, or an occupation in which there are unfillable shortages so that a job opportunity is assured. Twenty points are - 29 - awarded for education and training, 15 for personal qualities and 10 for age. Under one policy, a prospective immigrant with five years of education and training is on a par with one with fifteen years. Unlike the Canadians, the United States makes no distinction as to whether the intending immigrant is between the ages of 18 and 35 or between the ages of 36 and 44. The Canadian system gives as much as 10 points for a knowledge of English or French. Our policy is not concerned with knowledge of English except insofar as it might be essential in the job for which the alien has a labor certification. Canada awards five additional units depending upon the area of destination. This is undoubtedly related to the fact that approximately half of all immigrants coming to Canada are destined for the Province of Ontario and one half of those settle in the City of Toronto. Canada feels a desperate need to develop large unpopulated areas. Therefore an immigrant who is willing to settle in remote areas is accorded appropriate recognition. Australia The Minister of Immigration in Australia controls the number of aliens admitted annually. Applicants are designated through the Australian Selection Assessment System. To be approved the applicant must establish that he will be economically viable in Australia, that he is medically fit and has a satisfactory character record - 30 - and personal qualities that will fit into the Australian community, and that he has a sincere intention of making a permanent home in Australia and of becoming a citizen. Interviewing officers make firm selection recommendations after considering the size and composition of the applicant's family, the presence of relatives (if any) in Australia and the extent and degree of support and assistance likely to be required from the government after arrival. The latter is not unlike our statutory grounds of ineligibility (section 212 (a) (15)) which applies when the consular officer has reason to believe that the applicant is likely at any time to become a public charge. The alien's attitude towards migration, expectations in Australia, responsiveness, initiative, self-reliance, independence, appearance, personal hygiene, speech and behavior as well as his family unity all are relevant to the assessment. Unlike Canada, Australia has no fixed score on the overall assessment that will insure approval. It is understood that selection for immigration is founded strictly on the economic conditions and labor market needs of Australia and the whole selection process is geared to deny the immigration of all but those persons who will most benefit the country. Exempt from the assessment procedure for humanitarian reasons are the spouses, dependent children and aged or - 31 - otherwise dependent parents of Australian residents. Residents of Australia can also sponsor other close relatives and other people with recognized qualifications of experience which will fulfill community needs subject to their qualification under a limited administrative assessment system. Canadian and Australian immigration systems, then, vest almost unabridged discretionary powers in selection officers who determine qualifications which are based on highly subjective criteria. However a central goal, that of labor market participation and contribution, is effectively implemented in these countries. - 32 - D. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Although the United States is a nation of immigrants, policy which has determined who may enter has embodied formidable restrictions, qualitative as well as quantitative, intended to prevent open migration to this country. Our present law, which was passed in 1952 and substantially amended in 1965, incorporates four main goals: family reunification, immigration of individuals with needed skills and abilities, asylum for refugees, and control of visitors. In fact, the act works to have one major goal, family reunification, and three lesser goals. Most immigrants today are selected wholly on the basis of their family ties to U.S. citizens or permanent resident aliens with no consideration for their role or impact in the labor market or society in general. Although provisions for obtaining needed skills and talents represent one important goal of the current law, the labor certification program for implementing that goal has only minimal impact in providing permanent or temporary workers. In contrast, Canada and Australia, countries with immigration histories most similar to our own, effectively treat labor market needs as a major feature of their immigration systems. As a nation we are experiencing a 100% increase in the number of immigrants since 1965 (about 400,000 per year) as compared with the 1924-1965 period (about 190,000 per year). In addition, immigrant source countries have changed markedly resulting in a basic ethnic shift in our immigration away - 33 - from Europe in favor of Latin America and Asia. Pressure to immigrate from these areas is intense with several high demand countries having up to two-year waiting periods for immigrant visa issuance. Such backlogs contribute to illegal immigration streams from these nations. When the 1965 amendments were passed, a numerical ceiling was placed on Western Hemisphere immigration for the first time, however neither a preference system nor per country limits were applied as in the case of the Eastern Hemisphere. Abolishing the national origin quota and controlling Eastern Hemisphere entry were the overriding legislative considerations. Virtually no analysis or discussion prompted the final hour Western Hemisphere ceiling provision. Thus the statutory framework within which illegal immigration occurs and is defined was developed in order to eliminate past injustices from the law rather than to establish policy or definitions for meeting society's needs for immigration over future years. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Legislation should be passed by Congress which would extend the preference system and per country limits to the Western Hemisphere so that immigration opportunities within each hemisphere are more nearly equalized.* *See Footnote, p. 241. - 34 - 2. Replace the present case-by-case certification procedures with a system to make determinations more reflective of labor market conditions as indicated by data and information. 3. A thorough study of the effects of the Immigration and Nationality Act should be made as the basis for proposing fundamental statutory revisions which set immigration levels and qualifications in relation to current and anticipated future labor market needs of the society. - 35 - CHAPTER II ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION: THE GLOBAL PICTURE To formulate a comprehensive understanding and approach to the phenomenon of illegal immigration requires examination of the forces which create and perpetuate migrations of people. This chapter will examine the demand from other nations to immigrate to the U.S. followed by an analysis of illegal alien sending countries, migration theory, and the foreign relations issues which must be considered. A. WHO WANTS TO COME? - IMMIGRATION TO THE UNITED STATES The impetus to migrate is in varying degrees accommodated through the immigration laws and system described in Chapter I. We can measure the demand to immigrate through (a) statistical data relating to immigrant visa issuance, and (b) the numbers of aliens registered on immigrant visa waiting lists. These groups of aliens have met the initial qualifying tests of establishing the existence of a qualifying family preference relationship or obtaining a labor certificate for proposed employment. The only difference between the groups is that immigrant visa numbers have become available for final action for the former group but not yet for the latter. For each hemisphere, waiting lists are maintained in chronological order. Western Hemisphere The Visa Office of the Department of State statistically groups the Western Hemisphere countries into two sub-groups: - 36 - North American (including the Caribbean Islands and Central America to Panama) and South America. During 6/ the period 1969 to 1975, the breakdown between these sub-groups was: North America average - 83,737 visas issued; and South America average - 15,783 visas issued. The total population of North American countries is about 112,000,000 and the total for South America is 204,000,000. The difference in average visas issued shows rather dramatically that North America is the principal source of immigration to the United States from the Western Hemisphere with Mexico (almost 50% of the total), Jamaica, the Dominican Republic and Haiti as the major source countries. For immigrant visa applicants registered as of January 1, 1976, the same principle holds: almost 250,000 of the 300,000 total Western Hemisphere registrants come from North America (other than Cuba). In this group, Mexico is even more predominant, constituting about two-thirds. Within the Western Hemisphere therefore, major sources of documented demand for immigration are 6 First full year of hemispheric ceiling restriction of 120,000 for Western Hemisphere. 7/ Excluding Cuba which constitutes a special case and whose immigration figures do not represent a normal outflow. - 37 - Mexico and the Caribbean area, while demand from mainland South America is relatively minor. Eastern Hemisphere The Visa Office divides the Eastern Hemisphere into four regions: Africa, Asia (including the Middle East), Oceania (Australia, New Zealand, Fiji and several other island nations in the Pacific Ocean), and Europe. Documented demand from Oceania is very small, averaging less than 2,000 per year in 1969 to 1975. Immigration from Africa has also been small during the period, averaging about 5,300, although it has been increasing. Thus both regions have been negligible sources of immigration. Asia and Europe, however, are significant sources of immigration, with high annual averages during the 1969 to 1975 period: Asia, 83,234 and Europe, 78,345. Although Asia and Europe are roughly equal, these average figures hide an important shift over the period. In 1969 Europe exceeded Asia as a source of immigration in a ratio of about 3:2 (97,393 to 65,935). Annual declines in immigration from Europe and annual increases in immigration from Asia have virtually reversed this ratio so that in 1975 immigra- tion from Asia reached 98,996 and immigration from Europe had fallen to 61,386, a major shift in patterns of immigra- tion. - 38 - Four countries account for 76.1% of Asian immigration since 1969: China, India, Korea and the Philippines. Under existing legislation however, this process of increase cannot continue. Of the four countries concerned, three (China, Korea and the Philippines) have already reached the maximum annual foreign state limitation of 20,000 per year. Moreover, India reached almost 16,000 in 1975, and any increase will be limited to about 4,000. Additional demand will simply build up an annual backlog which will mean a waiting period of months or years for new applicants. The January 1, 1976 annual report of aliens registered on immigrant visa waiting lists shows that of the 225,000 registrants reported, over 160,000 were from Asia with about 55,000 from Europe. A case in point is the Philippines where over 100,000 applicants are registered. The foreign state limitation prevents visa issuance above 20,000 unlike the Western Hemisphere which has no individual state limitations on independent countries. Thus documented demand for and immigration to the U.S. today rests principally with Mexico, the countries of the Caribbean and Central America, Korea, the Philippines and China. - 39 - B. MAJOR ILLEGAL ALIEN SOURCE COUNTRIES Fifteen countries comprise the major illegal alien source countries. They are Mexico, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Jamaica, Guatemala, Colombia, Peru, Ecuador, the Philippines, Korea, Thailand, Greece, India, Iran and Nigeria. With few exceptions, the countries from which the majority of legal immigrants today come and which exhibit the greatest documented demand for legal immigra- tion are also the countries from which the majority of illegal entrants come. While our knowledge of the illegal entrant is largely limited to information which can be developed about apprehended illegal aliens, it is safe to conclude that those countries which have a large documented demand for immigration also have a great hidden demand which is producing illegal entry to the U.S. Illegal migration to the U.S. is from a variety of countries in the less developed world primarily in Latin America and Asia. The notion that the illegal problem is a Mexican problem is mistaken and represents a narrow view of the issue even though Mexico is probably the largest single sending country. 8/ This list, developed by the Foreign Relations task force, is based on data from the refusal/deportation/visa issuance statistics of the Department of State and the Immigration and Naturalization Service. - 40 - The countries from which illegal aliens come have similar characteristics in several important respects. These characteristics constitute significant push forces which, when combined with equally strong pull forces at another point, result in major movements of people or migration. International Push-Pull The push to migrate is primarily determined by the economic characteristics of the points of origin and destination including wages, unemployment and industrial growth. Social and demographic factors such as educational facilities, housing, population density, and personal characteristics of the migrant are involved, however employment differences have proven to be the dominant driving force. The composite picture of illegal alien sending countries is one of depressed economic conditions for the vast majority of people with large-scale rural to urban internal migrations underway. The economies of these countries are unable to provide employment for large segments of the skilled, semi-skilled and even professional population. Furthermore, there exist inadequate community services, including educational facilities, and a general lack of social mobility as well as very high population growth rates. Political instability or a perceived sense of impending political violence may also be a factor. - 41 - Specific examples, drawn from country reports prepared by the Foreign Relations task force, illustrate the push factor. "PERU although rich in minerals is a poor country, with most of its 16 million population earning little better than subsistence level livings at agriculture, mining and fishing." "COLOMBIA's per capita income of $510 disguises the fact that rural living standards are very low, many people live on subsistence agriculture, urban pressures include marginal masses, and the existence of a 10% unemployment rate." "In addition, INDIA's many schools and universities, some of which are quite good, turn out a large number of educated unemployed, and the prospects for improvement in the employment picture are not good in the short or medium term." "The results have been increasing disparities between the developmental levels of the [ECUADORIAN] cities and the countryside, greater rural emigration which has exacerbated urban unemployment and under- employment, inflation rates which have cut the buying power of the poor and created even greater social distances between the mainstream and the large and back- ward Indian population which exists only on the margin of the cash economy." "Although the rate of population growth has decreased significantly in the past decade under government-sponsored control programs to a 1975 level of 1.7% and is still falling, the number of KOREANS entering the labor force annually as a result of higher growth rates in earlier years remains high. "[IRAN's] rapid rise in oil earnings that started in 1973 triggered an acceleration in development efforts that has overstrained the existing infrastructure." "Although MEXICO's economic development in the 1960's and 1970's was the highest in any country in Latin America, the fruits of that growth do not benefit the segment of the population attracted to the U.S. Labor Market." - 42 - Pull factors in the United States are derived from the economic and technological disparity between the developed nations (one-fourth) of the world and the underdeveloped majority. Some evidence indicates that the native U.S. population has become so educated and upwardly mobile that many are unwilling to take lower paying, low status or disagreeable jobs. These jobs are willingly taken by workers from other countries and U.S. employers are anxious to hire unskilled foreign-born labor because it is cheap and industrious. This availability of work and the lack of sanctions for hiring illegal aliens is the single most important incentive to migration creating the pull portion of the equation. For people from other nations the U.S. remains a land of economic opportunity hospitable to those who would work hard to improve their circumstances. This lure, whether accurate or not, is enhanced by better opportunity for schooling and training for themselves and their children, and improved living conditions. The heterogeneity of the U.S. population makes it relatively easy to find acceptance in combination with cultural and historical affinity between estalbished ethnic groups in the U.S. and the sending countries. 9/ "Our common 2,000 mile border with MEXICO is unique in that nowhere else on earth does a political boundary separate two major countries with greater economic disparity." 9/ The U.S.-Mexican border is 1945.86 miles as determined by the U.S. Geological Survey. A rounded figure of 2,000 miles will be used in this report. - 43 - "As against a U.S. per capita GNP now exceeding $5,000 per year, the PHILIPPINE per capita GNP, at current prices, reached only $368 in 1975." "Some employers also prefer MEXICAN illegal workers for some occupations because they form a more passive supply of labor than more mobile native workers -- they tend to work 'scared and hard'." "COLOMBIANS, in general, and the poorer classes in particular, have come to view the United States as a relatively accessible land, of high living standards, upward social mobility, and unlimited opportunity.' "Despite GREECE's economic growth and European Economic Community ties, the U.S. will still remain a strong drawer of GREEK immigrants primarily because of the size of the Greek-American community and because of the importance of family and religious ties." Illegal alien source countries share essentially three common characteristics which seem to operate in combination to produce illegal migration. The pattern which emerges is one which will, given current trends and policies, apply to increasing numbers of countries in the world over the coming decades. 1. Rapid Economic Expansion The source countries tend to show signs of rapid economic growth and expansion and do not rank with the very poorest nations in the world. This is to be expected as individuals in the poorest nations have too few skills, too little knowledge of the U.S., and too few resources to attempt migration. Accompanying growth in source countries has frequently been a persistent mal-distribution of income so that the benefits of expansion have not accrued to all geographic or economic groups in the population. Thus, expectations have often risen faster than has the capacity to fulfill them. If this pattern is an inevitable aspect of rapid economic growth, we can expect more nations to be involved in the future. - 44 - 2. High Population Growth Rates These countries have high rates of population growth with the majority being young. Thus large numbers of people are and will be seeking employment in the future. Annual population growth rates of 2.5, 3.0, and 3.5% tend to offset gains made toward the creation of adequate numbers of jobs, the most important development challenge facing these countries. Emigration serves as a stop gap measure contri- buting to the postponement, to some extent, of necessary source country changes. While providing a safety valve, it also has definite draw backs for the sending countries. Migration is inevitably selective. Although the education level of migrants is on the average somewhat lower than that of native Americans, it is usually higher than that of the natives in the sending countries. Emigration removes people of productive age and leaves behind children and old people thereby raising the underdeveloped country's already high dependency ratio. The value of remittances sent back home may partly compensate for those losses, but the remittances are often uncertain. When they come, they are spent largely on consumer items rather than directed toward capital formation. As the source countries become still more crowded, there will be increasing pressure for emigration. Generally speaking, however, the problems of under- developed source countries are beyond solution by emigration. Should the United States try to accept as migrants the excess population growth of these countries, we would be dealing with the following figures: Total Population 1976 2000 United States 215,300,000 262,500,000 Source Countries 976,000,000 1,743,200,000 - 45 - The world's first billion inhabitants were produced by around 1850. By 1930 there were 2 billion. By 1961 world population reached 3 billion. Fifteen years were required to pass 4 billion and at present growth, 5 billion will be reached in 13 years. Latin America has the world's most rapid rate of growth with a population exceeding 326 million. It will enter the 21st centruy with well over one-half a billion people (606 million), having taken only 25 years to double its population at today's growth rate. 3. Links With the U.S. Cultural or historical links between the U.S. and the source countries appear to be a necessary ingredient in illegal immigration. A migration stream is sustained by positive reports, generally by word of mouth, of conditions, both economic and personal, in the host country. Links develop through U.S. cultural saturation of source countries, e.g., wartime presence in Korea or the Philippines, or through the existence of ethnically familiar communities in the U.S. Concentra- tions of legal immigrants are by no means necessarily supportive of or involved in illegal immigration. However, their very existence creates conditions of cultural familiarity and psychic support which are important factors in sustaining migration streams. Push and pull forces act cumulatively to create intense pressure for migration to the U.S. When it cannot be accommodated through authorized means, it may turn to clandestine means for the policies and resources which seek to contain it are not nearly so strong or fundamental as those which operate to nurture it. - 46 - MAJOR ILLEGAL ALIEN SOURCE COUNTRIES Population Estimate Mid-1976 (millions) 0.8 Growth (annual, percent) Rate of Population 87 Number of Years to Double Population Population Projection to 2000 (millions) Population under 15 Years (percent) Urban Population (percent) Per Capita Gross National Product (US$) COUNTRY USA (Reference) 215.3 262.5 27 74 6,640 Mexico 62.3 3.5 20 134.4 46 61 1,000 Dominican Republic 4.8 3.0 23 10.8 48 40 590 Haiti 4.6 1.6 43 7.1 41 20 140 Jamaica 2.1 1.9 36 2.8 46 37 1,140 Guatemala 5.7 2.8 25 11.1 44 34 570 Colombia 23.0 3.2 22 44.3 46 64 510 Peru 16.0 2.9 24 30.9 44 60 710 Ecuador 6.9 3.2 22 14.0 47 39 460 Philippines 44.0 3.0 23 86.3 43 32 310 Korea 34.8 2.0 35 52.3 40 41 470 Thailand 43.3 2.5 28 86.0 45 13 300 Greece 9.0 0.4 173 9.7 25 53 1,970 India 620.7 2.0 35 1,051.4 40 20 130 Iran 34.1 3.0 23 67.0 47 43 1,060 Nigeria 64.7 2.7 26 135.1 45 16 240 Population Data: Population Reference Bureau, Washington, D.C. - 47 - The Migration Phenomenon The combination of push forces at a point of origin and pull forces at a point of destination result in migration, a complex phenomenon involving demographic, 10/ anthropological, economic and political interrelationships. Peoples have been in movement for all of recorded history drifting from place to place in response to social, political, and economic factors. As these factors change over time, patterns of migration change. Migration is both internal to countries and external. While our interest rests with external or outcountry migration, the distinction between in and out-country migration is not primary. Rather, migration is the playing out of forces among which national boundaries is a secondary, not a controlling factor. Given the push-pull construct as the underlying basis for individual decisions to migrate, migration as a phenomenon exhibits common, predictable features. 1. Migration tends to take place largely within well defined streams. 2. For every major migration stream, a smaller counterstream develops. Some migrants intend to return; others return because of difficulties in re-settling. 3. The net migration is high when conditions at the destination are favorable in comparison to those at the origin. 10/ See Weaver, Thomas and Downing, Theodore E., ed., Mexican Migration, University of Arizona, 1976, for a full discussion. - 48 - 4. Migrants tend to be the more highly motivated and able individuals from the areas they leave. 5. The volume of migration increases as the difficulty of the intervening obstacles (distance, expense, natural barriers, laws) lessens. 6. The greater the intervening obstacles, the more highly motivated and able are the migrants. 7. In the absence of severe checks, both volume and rate of migration tend to increase with time. These general principles provide a framework for analyzing the policy questions which illegal immigration presents. If movement into the United States takes place within well defined streams, our legal immigration may serve to beget illegal immigration from countries where the pressure to emigrate is greater than our legal limits contemplate. Legal immigration limits are a function of domestic political considerations and perceived national interests. However migration streams develop in response to economic and social forces which our law was never meant to accommodate. However legal immigration may well set in motion a self-sustaining process which is guided by its own momentum instead of by the law which spawned and seeks to define it. To recognize the possibility of legal immigration fostering illegal immigration is not to conclude that immigration from high demand areas should cease. It does, - 49 - however, require careful consideration of what other tools may be available to influence the migration process. The rate and nature of migration is strongly influenced by the obstacles between origin and destination. Thus we would expect an easily penetrated land border to be more inviting than a cross-ocean journey which involves considerable expense and procurement of documents. Stressing prevention of entry by making the physical process of coming to the U.S. more formidable and risky is an obvious approach which addresses basic principles guiding migration. To the extent that the obstacles between origin and destination simply involve physical difficulties related to gaining entry, they present but one level of an obstacle strengthening approach. Policy could also recognize the ease or difficulty of living in the U.S. illegally. In this regard the availability of work, services, change of legal status and the likelihood and penalties of being discovered are important. The principle of counterstream and net redistribution of population pursuant to migration also provide tools. If there is a built in tendency for migrants to return, policies which encourage return in both host and sending countries might be developed. Over the long term, narrowing the gap in conditions between origin and destination will make it - 50 - less compelling for migrants to brave the difficulties of resettlement. Experience with Italy-U.S. migration has had an interesting history in this regard. Until recently the pressure to emigrate from Italy had been intense displaying all the characteristics and patterns of source- host country relationships discussed earlier. However in recent years the surge has become a trickle and the explana- tion given by observers relates to the gradual but definite improvements in living standards that have occurred in high out-migration areas of Italy. Remaining in Italy still does not offer the economic opportunity available in the U.S. However, the gap has been narrowed to a point where overcoming the financial, cultural and psychic costs of resettling is attractive to fewer and fewer would-be immigrants. Programs directed at the counterstream and net redistribution principles must also take into consideration the forces which influence migrants during the settlement process in a new country. Settlement is discussed in detail in Chapter VI, however in general it can be said that migrants who may intend to remain only temporarily in a new country tend to undergo a basic change in aspirations or goals rather quickly which causes them to resettle permanently. - 51 - Thus settlement pressures may outweigh the incentives available to effect significant counterstreams. A careful understanding of migration and analysis of the specific character of the migrations we are currently experiencing must be sought and utilized by policymakers. Illegal immigration is a result of international push- pull forces which are stronger than the law and systems currently in place to control it. Comprehensive policy approaches, both short and long term, must be directed at the ingredients which create push-pull and at the principles governing the migration phenomenon if they are to have any reasonable chance of successfully slowing the illegal alien flow. - 52 - C. MEXICO AND THE UNITED STATES - A BILATERAL APPROACH Although clandestine migration is not a narrowly based phenomenon limited to few countries or causes, Mexico does occupy a unique historical and geographical place in the picture. The number of Mexican nationals who have legally emigrated to the United States has steadily increased over the last decade. During the period from 1963 through 1975, Mexicans constituted at 664,453 the largest group of legal immigrants to the United States. In 1975, the 62,205 Mexican immigrants admitted represented approximately 16 percent of the total legal immigration to the United States, double the second largest national contingent which was from the Philippines. However, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) apprehends and returns to Mexico more undocumented migrants each year than the total number of people who emigrate legally to the United States from all nations of the world. Thus Mexico is our most sizeable current source of clandestine immigration as well as legal immigration. Mexico-U.S. comparisons present a classic example of push-pull factors with the most striking feature being annual per capita incomes of $700 and $5000, respectively. Still the case of Mexico is also unique in two important ways. - 53 - - We share a common 2000 mile border which is relatively easy to cross. - Mexican migration to the U.S. is not a recent development but rather part of a long history of significant regional cultural commingling and economic interdependence. Evaluated within the framework of migration discussed earlier, these differences are significant. Our common border is a far less formidable intervening obstacle than is an ocean and therefore influences the selectivity of the migration as well as the volume. Time and cultural receptivity are equally important indicators influencing migration. The North-Houstoun research, which will be more fully discussed in Chapter IV, indicates that the Mexican migration is qualitatively different largely due to the factors which make Mexico distinct from, rather than similar to, other illegal alien source countries. This suggests that a different approach to Mexican clandestine migration may need to be fashioned although much research must yet be done in order to understand better the similarities and differences which are relevant to policy. It also suggests that bilateral negotiations and cooperation should be sought. - 54 - Undocumented Mexican migration raises difficult issues for the governments of both Mexico and the U.S. Mexican spokes- men cite the unreliability of the illegal alien data base which is disseminated by official American sources as a major concern. They wish to insure that the legal, labor and human rights of their nationals in the U.S. are fully protected. Mexico has recently established several significant internal resettlement efforts directed at Mexican workers from areas of high rural out-migration. These programs rely on rural development through labor intensive employment schemes. Any sudden return to Mexico of large numbers of undocumented workers would exacerbate already serious internal employment problems. The United States hopes for increased enforcement of extant Mexican laws and regulations directed at immigration to this country. Examples are: -- ensuring that persons leaving Mexico do so through a designated place of departure. -- increased enforcement directed against Mexican or American smugglers of illegal aliens. -- identification of persons in the border areas who are there solely for the purpose of surreptitiously entering the United States. -- preventing nationals from third countries from using Mexico as a means of illegally entering the United States. - 55 - While such measures would help to slow the flow of Mexican illegal aliens, they do not address the underlying causes. For the long term much more must be known about the dimensions, characteristics, and impacts of Mexico-U.S. migration to develop effective approaches. Proposals for joint action should be directed at law enforcement and criminal abuse of undocumented workers as well as at relevant economic, trade, investment and labor matters. U.S. -Mexico Discussions The problem of the illegal Mexican migration is currently being discussed by the U.S. Inter-Agency Committee for the Study of Problems Related to the Illegal Migration of Mexican Aliens Into the U.S. 11/ and the Mexican Commission on Undocu- mented Workers. These groups, established as an outgrowth of President Ford's meeting with President Echeverria in October, 1974, last met in a joint plenary session in Washington, D.C., April 19, 20, 21, 1976. Follow-up sessions have since been held at several border sites. The work of these groups repre- sents initial steps toward meeting the serious need for cooperative efforts between the governments of both nations. 11/ Serves as Foreign Relations task force of Domestic Council Committee on Illegal Aliens. - 56 - Other Countries With the possible recent exception of Mexico, the control of illegal immigration has not been an item of concern to U.S. policymakers in the governance of our relations with sending countries. The State Department's country policy papers, which outline U.S. policy goals for the major sending countries, do not in any case cite illegal emigration as an issue although several accord priority to establishing effective visa issuing processes. Bureaucratic expertise or resources with regard to migra- tion and related issues are sparse at best. Research monies in the international area are not commonly directed at the relationship between migration and other foreign policy goals. The research which is available and which is discussed in Chapter IV indicates that there may be significant differences between Mexican migration and that of the Caribbean and Central American countries. Very likely the influx from the Philippines poses important variations to the theme as well. Illegal immigration must be accorded a far higher and more generalized level of attention in the conduct of foreign affairs. Illegal emigration is not simply a consular matter but a central feature of development in a significant number of countries. While the issue encompasses a somewhat unique blend of foreign and domestic policy concerns, this combination has appeared before in such areas as drugs for example. - 57 - Slowing the flow of illegal aliens will require new policies in both the domestic and foreign relations areas. Understanding and cooperation from sending countries is critical. Steps to establish bilateral discussion and joint cooperation must be significantly expanded to include all the major source countries and the issue of illegal emigration must in and of itself as well as through the attendant issues of family planning, rural develop- ment, employment policies and the like, receive greater foreign policy emphasis. - 58 - D. COMPETING FOREIGN RELATIONS PRIORITIES Strict Visa Issuance Controls To pursue a policy of actively discouraging illegal immigration from within source countries would impinge on certain established practices and policy goals. The most obvious is our long-established goal of promoting student and visitor travel. What would be the result if the U.S. Government were to exercise its sovereign right to adopt a more effective visa issuing and port of entry admission posture? This would include more careful screening out of fraudulent applicants who misrepresent their real intent to work and remain in the United States with false claims or documents. Section 214 (b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act clearly spells out that "Every alien shall be presumed to be an immigrant until he establishes to the satisfaction of the consular officer and the immigration officers that he is entitled to a nonimmigrant status." If this basic provision of the law were vigorously and thoroughly enforced, visa refusal rates and exclusion statistics for the illegal alien source countries would doubtless rise sharply. The State Department believes that our relations with the source countries would not be noticeably affected if - 59 - controls of ineligible aliens were tightened somewhat on a worldwide, non-discriminatory basis. Even in the event of a significant increase of visa refusal and exclusion rates, while there might be some souring of local attitude toward the United States within certain elements of the local populace, there would in all probability be no immediate effect on intergovernmental relations. Imposition of control measures with real teeth or outright exclusion, however, could cause serious repercussions, especially in Mexico, and to a lesser degree in the Caribbean area and the Philippines. As a current U.S. foreign relations priority, an effective visa issuing process varies within the source countries. This function is inadequately stressed in current U.S. foreign country policy goals. Tourism Imposition of stricter travel controls could adversely affect the mission of the United States Travel Service (USTS) as stated in the 1961 International Travel Act: (1) develop, plan and carry out a comprehensive program designed to stimulate and encourage travel to the U.S. by residents of foreign countries for the purpose of study, culture, recreation, business, and other activities as a means of promoting friendly understanding and goodwill among the people of foreign countries and the U.S.; and - 60 - (2) encourage the simplification, reduction, or elimination of barriers to travel, and facilita- tion of international travel generally. USTS argues that actions which would frustrate or impede the flow of bonafide tourists into the U.S. -- for example the prescription of more stringent tests of non-immigrant status for visa applicants, the imposition of travel controls on persons entering, or intending to enter, the country legally, or the settling of a rigid rejection rate objective, by country, for visa applications -- would conflict with national tourism policy and affect the Travel Service's ability to carry out its responsibilities. Tourism is an important element of U.S. trade in goods and services, and according to USTS accounted for an estimated $5.5 billion in foreign exchange earnings in 1975. USTS estimates that every $15,000 in tourism receipts creates or supports one job. Expenditures by international visitors supported about 366,000 American jobs in 1975. Whether or not strengthened controls will decrease the number of bona fide tourists is an important issue. USTS points Qut that any significant changes to control the flow of illegal aliens must take into account an awareness of the economic benefits of tourism, the legitimate interests of the tourism industry (including labor) and the intent of the Congress in passing the International Travel Act of 1961. - 61 - Other priorities in overseas investment programs, development efforts and the like very likely come into play. In the long term exploration and analysis of the inter-relatedness of emigration and a wide range of foreign policy goals and practices is needed. - 62 - E. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The demand to immigrate legally to the United States is intense in Mexico, several Caribbean and Central American nations, the Philippines and Korea. These are also prominent among the 15 major illegal alien sending countries. When the pressure to emigrate cannot be met through authorized means, it may become clandestine for the push forces creating it are stronger than the official policies or systems established to contain it. The economic push due to a lack of jobs and economic opportunity in source countries is met by strong pull forces in the U.S. The major attraction for illegal immigration is available work. The illegal entrant risks detection but the risk is not great enough to prevent significant numbers from coming. This combination of international push and pull forces is the basic cause of illegal immigration. Some tools around which to develop new policies are suggested by the principles which describe the phenomenon of migration, principally the deterrent potential of increased obstacles. Illegal alien sending countries exhibit striking similarities in the areas of economic expansion, population growth, and links with the U.S. These characteristics operate in concert to produce migration which functions as a safety valve for the sending country and contributes to postponement of necessary change. Under current conditions - 63 - in the U.S. and abroad the potential number of aliens involved is staggering. If pressure to emigrate to the U.S. is indeed a function of certain patterns of development, we can expect to add other countries to the source list in the future. Although Mexico is not the sole source of illegal entrants, it is the major source. Bilateral discussions between the U.S. and Mexican governments have been initiated and working proposals on law enforcement, criminal abuse of Mexican nationals and relevant economic issues are being developed. Solutions to the illegal alien problem must include cooperation and support from source country governments. Bilateral discussions must be greatly expanded. In addition, control of illegal immigration must become a more central concern to U.S. policymakers in the conduct of our foreign relations. This means that some conflicts with other foreign affairs goals, such as promotion of travel and study in the U.S., need to be considered. Recommendations 1. State Department Contribution to Research A major U.S. Government research effort aimed at filling in the extensive knowledge gaps regarding the flow of illegal aliens should be supported, with interagency coordination. For example, the Department of State should develop a correlation analysis for those factors that have - 64 - been identified as common to most source countries. This should be specifically structured to extrapolate data capable of predicting future flows of illegal migration. 2. Continuation and Expansion of U.S./Mexico Dialogue Useful discussions between the U.S. Interagency Committee on Illegal Aliens and the Mexican Inter- Secretarial Commission have been held. Such meetings and exchanges must be continued and established with other sending nations. Future meetings should include intensified cooperation between U.S. and Mexican immigration officials, establishing working groups to deal with operational problems and developing proposals for economic policies. 3. Establish Position in State to Coordinate Illegal Migration Matters The State Department should establish a full-time position and resources for overseeing worldwide efforts at slowing the flow of illegal aliens. The magnitude and spread of illegal migration calls for an intrafunctional approach involving political and economic personnel and resources in addition to the techniques utilized in traditional consular procedures. The migration officer would also act as liaison officer for State with INS and the Domestic Council Committee on Illegal Aliens. - 65 - 4. Develop Strategies Aimed at Push-Pull Forces The relationship between push-pull, migration theory, individual source country patterns of economic growth, and U.S. foreign relations with those countries must be thoroughly analysed and re-evaluated. We must develop strategies and programs which address the basic themes of push-pull and migration recognizing that fundamental changes, difficult for governments to control in the short term, must be sought. - 66 - CHAPTER III - LAW ENFORCEMENT Today the enforcement of this nation's immigration laws is largely directed at the problem of illegal immi- gration. To understand enforcement issues, one must separate the migration of undocumented workers from Mexico, which has its antecedents during World War I, from the more recent phenomenon of a movement of labor from certain less developed nations to the U.S. The latter has only begun to manifest itself since the mid- 1960's, and involves, based on the evidence to date, several migration streams from various parts of the world. A. BACKGROUND Mexico Basic to the issue of Mexican immigration into the United States is the nature of the border between the two nations. The entire region which now encompasses our boundary once belonged to Spain and later to Mexico. Originally explored and colonized by Spanish-speaking people, it was developed by them for almost three hundred years before a definite boundary was drawn giving to the United States that portion generally north of the Rio Grande. The border, established without regard to either the ethnic composition or the economy of the people within the region, has been called one of the most unrealistic borders in the Western Hemisphere. - 67 - Legally, immigration is "the passing or moving into a country with a purpose of permanent residence." When applied to the border, the place of residence is the region, and thousands of Mexican people have been accustomed to live in the area for generations. The permanence of residence is not destroyed by the mere crossing of a line which is for the most part imaginary, regardless of the side of that line upon which one happened to be born. Unlike immigrants from Europe and the rest of the world, the Mexican has no great psychological or physical obstacles in the path of his migration. Culturally and economically, the northern States of the Republic of Mexico are in many respects similar to the Southwest region of this country. In a sense, then, the cultural basis for the current situation in our Southwest was established after the Mexican-American War of 1846. Through the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, the United States annexed most of the territory which now comprises the states of Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas, as well as smaller parts of Nevada and Utah. Under the terms of this treaty, all Mexican citizens living within this area were to become citizens of the United States if they did not - 68 - leave the newly acquired territory within one year or declare their intent to retain Mexican citizenship. Few chose to leave. Very little immigration across this new political boundary took place until the turn of the century. Between 1910 and 1917, 150,000 Mexicans emigrated to the U.S. largely as a result of violence accompanying the Mexican civil war. With the advent of the First World War, the United States faced certain labor shortages. Not only agriculture, but railroad and mining interests required an available supply of cheap labor. The Secretary of Labor authorized immigration officials to exempt illiterate temporary Mexican farm workers from the immigrant qualifications and head tax provisions of the Immigration Act of 1917. A rapidly industrializing America as well as the nomadic life thrust upon Mexican agricultural workers combined to induce movement into many cities of the Midwest and Northwest. Although the largest number remained in the Southwest, significant enclaves of Mexicans were established in a number of Midwestern cities. The dispersion continued until the Great Depression when approximately 200,000 Mexicans, who had entered without documentation, were repatriated. Special efforts were made to locate and remove illegal Mexican aliens. In fact, the - 69 - campaign became so zealous that certain numbers of persons of Mexican ancestry -- usually with some form of legal equity -- were induced to repatriate themselves by "voluntarily" returning to Mexico. Stopping welfare pay- ments was one device used to aid in this effort. Much of the latent antagonism of Mexican-American communities toward the Immigration and Naturalization Service and its agent, the Border Patrol, which was created in 1924, has its origin in this unhappy period. The Bracero Program World War II again brought war-related labor shortages which prompted this country to seek an arrangement with the Government of Mexico for the temporary importation of workers. In August, 1942, a formal agreement between Mexico and the United States was negotiated and the action launched the Mexican Labor Program, better known as the Bracero Program, under which Mexican labor was to be provided for agricultural and railroad laborer jobs. Provisions of the contract stipulated that workers were to be afforded protections in housing, transportation, food, medical services, and wage rights. The Bracero Program was to terminate in 1947, however, it was continued informally until 1951. In that year, it was formalized as Public Law 78, and the agreement for - 70 - Mexico to provide laborers to work in the American rural labor markets remained in effect until terminated on December 31, 1964. Operation Wetback Illegal Mexican migration increased during the Bracero years because employers, dissatisfied with the Bracero Program, sought to maximize their profits. Texas farmers, because of Mexico's refusal to extend the Bracero Program into their state for a time, probably hired more illegal Mexican aliens than any other state. As a result, the Border Patrol launched Operation Wetback in 1953-54, and nearly 1 million apprehensions of clandestine Mexicans were made in one year. Some contend that a major function of the Border Patrol in this period was to regulate through selective enforcement rather than by apprehension and exclusion. Certainly one controversial practice of this era was the so-called "wringing out wetbacks." Under this practice, Mexican illegal aliens were returned to Mexico, if only temporarily, and subsequently recruited and returned under contract with employers in the United States. With the conclusion of Operation Wetback, the apprehension of size- able numbers of illegal aliens along the border fell signi- ficantly until the termination of the Bracero Program in - 71 - December of 1964. For the period following Operation Wetback, 1956-65, total apprehensions averaged less than 50,000 annually. The Contemporary Problem The forces which created and sustained the "Bracero" program continue to persist. There continues to be an economic demand induced by some employers in the United States for Mexican workers. That demand is being met by 12/ commuters and illegal aliens. During recent years, along with the high population growth rate, there has been a major movement of people within Mexico from rural areas into Mexico City and northern border towns. Mexico City, for example, 15 to 20 years ago had a population of approximately 1-1/2 million. It has now burgeoned to an estimated 10-13 million. Conditions in the U.S. border towns appear to be particularly relevant. Economic conditions there are un- favorable, unemployment being estimated in the 30 to 40 percent range, and wages at the subsistence level. While there is variance from town to town for those employed, wages are never more than one-third the minimum in the United States. 12/ In December 1975 there were about 54,000 commuters working legally in the United States, 45,000 of whom were from Mexico. - 72 - Prospects of available employment, of course, are the major attraction drawing illegal workers into the United States. Migration by the Mexican is also enhanced by the Bracero experiences of friends and relatives and by ties of cultural affinity existing for many generations between Mexican-Americans (Chicanos) and Mexicans. Although divergent political and economic realities on either side of the border have often caused antagonistic feelings between these two groups, mutually shared cultural values, including a common language, remain. Traditionally, illegal Mexican migration was a relatively localized situation. It is now spreading far from the border to those areas that were settled in the early part of this century by immigrants from Mexico such as Chicago, Denver, Detroit, Kansas City and St. Louis. In addition, current migration is much more heavily institutionalized than that of the past. A significant number of professions, agencies, and individuals live off of promoting migration to the United States. Some examples would be border-town taxi companies and mini-buses that make the run to Chicago, San Francisco, Denver, Dallas, and other cities, forever soliciting a full comple- ment of passengers, including women, children, and old folks, as well as "tourists" and "shoppers" whose request for a - 73 - visitor's visa has been turned down by American consuls; the travel agencies that sell cut-rate tourist excursions by air direct to the United States or via Puerto Rico or Canada; the coyotes and enganchistas whose longstanding business has been to deliver truckloads and busloads of gullible Mexican jobseekers from the interior of Mexico to border towns; smuggler rings, involving guides, drivers, innkeepers, labor agencies, job foremen, fabricators of false documents, and the like; and certain predatory lawyers, immigrant consultants, and public notaries, who work immigrant hardship cases. There is ready accessibility to the United States across our 2,000 mile border which makes policing very difficult. Late in 1974, about 85 percent of the 1,600 person Border Patrol force was assigned to that border, leaving the interior relatively unpoliced. As a result, if the Mexican alien now successfully penetrates the border region, he is essentially "home free." The very openness, freedom of movement, absence of controls, and physical size of the United States and the heterogeneity of the population make it relatively easy for undocumented migrants to remain undetected. Escaping detection is substantially enhanced by the lack of risk or cost for the employer hiring illegal workers. Although it is against the law for an alien to - 74 - enter illegally or remain illegally, it is not against the law for an employer to hire an undocumented worker. Normally, if migration is permanent, the sending country loses some of its productive workers. However, in the case of Mexico where population levels, aspirations, and infrastructure development are in disequilibrium, any Mexican sense of loss may be many years in the future. In addition to relieving population pressure through the safety valves of illegal and legal migration, the favorable effects on international balances of payment for Mexico from remittances by migrants to their families are consid- erable. Other Countries The Mexican problem involves surreptitious entry around designated ports of entry across our common land border. Recently a newer, sometimes less obvious migration of illegal aliens from a number of Caribbean, Central American and Asian countries has begun to create a more complex situation. It involves, for the most part, persons coming through ports of entry documented as visitors and students, who then violate the terms of their admission by overstaying and/or taking employment. As screening for such entrants increases, these persons are turning to any number of fraudulent devices in order to gain entry to this country. - 75 - Although not entirely accurate because the categories overlap to some extent, non-Mexican illegals are referred to as visa abusers whereas Mexican illegals are known as EWI's (Entry Without Inspection). As discussed in Chapter II the source countries of visa abusers share many character- istics in common with Mexico. However the different means by which the two groups enter pose significantly different, difficult enforcement problems. - 76 - B. PRESENT ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM The task of preventing the illegal migration of people into the country falls primarily to the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). This agency is aided in its prevention efforts by the State Department which is respon- sible for the issuance of visas overseas. A number of other agencies' activities, to a lesser extent, impact on enforce- ment efforts aimed at illegal aliens. These activities generally involve actions relating to control over such persons once they are in the country. These entities are: the Wage and Hour Enforcement Division of the Department of Labor, the U.S. Customs Service, the Internal Revenue Service, and the Social Security Administration. In enforcing the nation's immigration laws, the pre- vention of illegal entry is of paramount importance to INS and involves almost 40 percent of its personnel. Prevention is carried on through two activities: inspections at ports of entry and maintenance of a border patrol between entry sites. Inspection activities are conducted at numerous points of entry along our international borders as well as at designated airports and seaports. The law requires that each alien seeking admission to the United States present himself to an immigration officer who determines whether such a person is admissible based on 31 categories of exclusion. - 77 - The U.S. Customs Service also performs inspection for immigration purposes according to a cross-designation authority. In FY 75, 790,232 persons (o.003%) were denied 13 / entry out of a total of 259 million inspections. If a person does not present himself at a port-of-entry for inspection, it falls to the Border Patrol to prevent the entry. Authority Definition and designation of immigration officers are provided by statute and regulation. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 provides wide ranging authorities: " any officer or employee of the Service authorized under regulations prescribed by the Attorney General shall have power without warrant To interrogate any alien or person believed to be an alien as to his right to be or to remain in the United States; To arrest any alien who in his presence or view is entering or attempting to enter the United States in violation of any law or regu- lation made in pursuance of law regulating the admission, exclusion or expulsion of aliens; To arrest any alien in the United States if he has reason to believe that the alien so arrested is in the United States in violation of any such law or regulation, and is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained for his arrest; 13 / This number includes so-called "turnbacks," persons who approach the port and do not have proper documentation at that time. - 78 - To make arrests for felonies which have been committed and which are cognizable under any law of the United States regulating the admission, exclusion or expulsion of aliens if he has reason to believe that the person so arrested is guilty of such felony and if there is likelihood of the person escaping before a warrant can be obtained for his arrest; Within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States, to board and search for aliens any vessel, within the territorial waters of the United States and any railway car, aircraft, convey- ance or vehicle; Within a distance of twenty-five miles from any external boundary, to have access to private lands, but not dwellings, for the purpose of patrolling the border to prevent the illegal entry of aliens into the United States. " Additional authority to board and search conveyances is contained in section 235 of the act, which states: "Immigration officers are hereby authorized and empowered to board and search any vessel aircraft, railway car, or other conveyance, or vehicle in which they believe aliens are being brought into the United States.' " Tactics and Procedures Border Patrol officers assigned to this duty are the primary interception force which is responsible for pre- venting and/or detecting illegal entry and alien smuggling. There is a wide spectrum of activities which are performed as part of the line watch including the physical patrolling - 79 - of the border, surveillance at known crossing points, tower watch, "sign cutting," observation by aircraft, and respond- ing to sensor network alarms. This first line of defense at the immediate border is the foundation and precondition of successful enforcement. Since experience has shown that interdiction is most efficiently and effectively performed at the immediate border, the Border Patrol has always allocated a majority of its manpower and resources to the areas of the immediate border. There are also several supplemental tactics which are used to backup the line watch. 1. Traffic checks are aimed at the illegal entrant who has successfully crossed the border and is presumably enroute to an interior destination. Both permanent and non-permanent traffic checks have been employed; permanent check points are used on major highways while non-permanent are selectively placed on different roads leading from and through the border area. 2. Farm and ranch checks are designed to locate and apprehend those illegal entrants who have penetrated the INS "first line of defense" and successfully obtained jobs. This tactic normally has a high apprehension rate since - 80 - illegal entrants are often found in groups at their places of employment. 3. City patrol attempts to locate the illegal entrant who has been able to reach one of the metropolitan areas along the border. It includes checking factories, businesses, hotels, jails and other potential locations. 4. Transportation checks are targeted against the successful entrant who is attempting to flee the immediate border area by common carrier. They include the questioning of suspected aliens at bus stations and at train and aircraft terminals. They also include checking freight trains and freight yards. 5. Secondary patrol is the tactic employed by the backup stations. It includes "sign cutting" and highway and road patrol. 6. Boat patrol is conducted along the coastal borders and on inland waterways. The relative effectiveness of these tactics is demon- strated in the large numbers of illegal entrants who are apprehended at entry or shortly thereafter. Line watch is the most productive and efficient since it results in the interdiction of the largest number of illegal entrants - 81 - immediately at the border. It is also the least disruptive or objectionable tactic from the community relations point of view for citizens or resident aliens of Hispanic background. Once an illegal entrant has gained access to the "interior" of the country, the job of detecting such a person falls to the investigative arm of the Service. For those persons who have not entered surreptitiously over the borders, it is the investigator force who must locate an overstaying visitor, a student not attending school or working full-time, or any alien who has violated the criminal provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Investigators are located mainly in major urban centers with over half of the investigators located in our three largest cities, Chicago, Los Angeles and New York. The basic technique utilized is to follow specific leads either on individual cases of suspected illegal aliens or informa- tion on known congregating points of illegal aliens such as certain work places. Once an illegal alien is apprehended, the massive number of immigration law violators apprehended by INS prevents the application of the full force of the law, i.e., prosecution in the courts or formal deportation within the INS adminis- trative process. In FY 1974, there were 741, 369 violations - 82 - which could be entertained for prosecution; over 92 percent were closed by blanket or general waiver. For this reason, a less complicated repa- triation procedure is used. Immigration statutes and implementing regulations provide for illegal aliens to "voluntarily depart" for their country under certain circumstances, and INS uses this procedure extensively to expedite the removal of illegal aliens from the country. "Repeat" or aggravated offenders and criminal violators are held for prosecution and/or deportation proceedings. There are a number of factors about this system which deserve comment. First of all, the inherent nature of the situation places emphasis on the detection and prevention of illegal entry. The efficiency with which the Service can apprehend large numbers of illegal entrants in the immediate border area contributes to the disproportionate numbers of Mexican nationals that are reflected in the annual apprehension statistics. It is also the major factor that influences the current placement of resources. This emphasis, for example, finds about 40% of the Service's total resources being devoted to enforcement in our Southwest -- activities that are primarily preventive in nature. Over 1700 of the Border Patrol's 2000 officers are located in the - 83 - greater Southwest area. To some extent, then, this deploy- ment defines the problem -- particularly in terms of the numbers of illegal aliens that are located each year. A second factor is the difficulty in apprehending illegal aliens in interior locations such as our larger metropolitan areas. The illegal alien, once in these locations, tends to become an invisible person. All tactics that are used to ferret out and apprehend such persoms must be weighed in light of their impact upon individual liberties of all persons of foreign descent as well as the disruptive consequences they may have on the communities involved. Even if an illegal alien is apprehended at areas away from the border, detention is hindered by a lack of facilities and by cost. A third, and sometimes overriding factor, is the often dilatory tactics that illegals employ in an effort to remain in the country and gain equity once they have arrived. A higher percentage of illegals located in interior locales utilize the hearing process than those aliens along the Mexican Border. With its present resources the Service could not possibly conduct a hearing for every alien appre- hended without seriously affecting its overall enforcement posture. - 84 - Thus, with resources of 8,800 personnel and $210 million in FY 1976, the Service places its highest priority on prevention activities. Despite this emphasis, a force of some 1700 patrolmen in our Southern Border can mean only slightly over 200 on any one shift. This results in one patrolman for every 10 miles of the 2000 mile long border. Of almost 800,00 14 / apprehensions per year recently, over 700,000 were Mexicans, the vast majority of whom were apprehended in the immediate border area. Court Decisions Recently, the courts have taken a more active role in areas affecting the operations of the Service. In Almeida-Sanchez V. U.S., 413 U.S. 266, the Supreme Court held that the warrantless search of an automobile at a location other than the border or the functional equivalent thereof, made without probable cause or consent following a roving patrol stop, violated the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. The Supreme Court, in United States V. Brignoni-Ponce, No. 74-114 held that a roving patrol stop of a vehicle away from the immediate border area, and the questioning of its 14/ An apprehension is an event for statistical purposes, not a person. Thus 800,000 apprehensions probably involves less than 800,000 individuals, as many illegal aliens are apprehended more than once each year. - 85 - occupants merely because they appeared to be of Mexican descent, violated the Fourth Amendment. The Court explained that before any such stop could be adjudged lawful, the officer must be aware of specific 15/ articulable facts supporting a reasonable suspicion that there are illegal aliens in the vehicle. The Court added that while Mexican appearance was relevant, standing alone, it was not sufficient justification for the stop. In United States V. Ortiz, No. 73-2050, the Supreme Court ruled that a checkpoint search of a vehicle trunk, away from the border, without probable cause or consent, violated the Fourth Amendment. In United States V. Martinez-Fuerte, No. 74-1560, the Supreme Court held that the Border Patrol may routinely stop vehicles at established checkpoints reasonably located away from the border in absence of suspicion that particular vehicle contains aliens. Vehicle searches, however, require probable cause or consent. In areas away from the border and its functional equi- valents, a vehicle may be stopped by the patrol and the occupants questioned briefly pursuant to a determination by 15 / In this sense, articulable facts refers to a combination of circumstances that prompt an officer to stop and query an individual. These circumstances must be clearly explained and sufficient to convince a reasonable person that such a check was justifiable. - 86 - the officer that there is a reasonable suspicion of illegal aliens in the vehicle which can be supported by specific articulable facts. Whenever a vehicle is to be searched in any but a "border search" situation, the officer must be prepared to articulate a clear determination of probable cause, or the stated consent of the driver or owner. This is applicable to both checkpoint and roving patrol stops. To comply with the decisions in these cases, the Service revamped some of its Mexican border area highway operations; a case in point was 16/ the elimination of stopping cars by roving patrols. In a related development, several district courts are urging that the principle of articulate reasonable suspicion be extended to pedestrian situations routinely encountered in such enforcement functions as the stopping and questioning of persons on the streets, in transportation terminals, in other public places, and commercial establishments. On July 29, 1975, a preliminary injunction was issued against the Immigration and Naturalization Service in the case of Illinois Migration Council V. Pilliod (case as yet unreported.) Under the terms of the injunction the Service 16/ The checkpoint at San Clemente and several others were closed for 15 months following an adverse decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. However, they were reopened when the Supreme Court ruled in U.S. V. Martinez-Fuerte et al. that the routine stopping of vehicles for brief questioning of occupants at reason- ably located Border Patrol checkpoints is constitutional. It was also held that such motorists may be selectively referred to secondary areas for further limited inquiry. The Court reasoned that " the public interest in making such stops outweighs the constitutionally protected interest of the private citizen." - 87 - is barred, in the North District of Illinois, from stopping, detaining, arresting or interrogating persons of Mexican ancestry of Spanish surname in the absence of a warrant, or reasonable suspicion that the person is an alien illegally in the United States. At this time, INS has decided to limit all area control operations throughout the country to working specific leads and complaints. The effect of these decisions has been to place even greater emphasis on preventing entry in the first place. Visa Screening The issuance of visas was first instituted by a Department of State instruction on April 17, 1917, and elaborated in a joint order of the Departments of State and Labor on July 26, 1917. The visa requirement was made statutory by the Immigra- tion Act of 1924 and by subsequent legislation, notably the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. Under the terms of the Act of 1924 a dual-check system of determining the admissibility of aliens desiring to enter the United States was made a part of the statutues. Consular officers of the United States Foreign Service, responsible to the Department of State, were charged with the responsibility of issuing visas to alien applicants abroad who had proved their admissibility under the immigration laws, while represent- atives of the Bureau of Immigration, then a part of the Department of Labor, were required to verify the aliens' admissibility upon their arrival at a port of entry of the United States. - 88 - The consular officer's authority under the law to issue a visa is not reviewable, and is unlike that of the immigration inspector whose judgment regarding inadmissibility must be supported by a finding of excludability on the part of an immigration judge. The discretion of a consular officer places him in a unique and somewhat invidious position for preventing mala fide visa applicants from coming to this country. In recent years successive Presidents have stressed the importance of facilitating international travel. The pro- cedures for the issuance of visas to persons wishing to visit the United States have been made as simple as possible and every effort is made to expedite the necessary action. During the last ten years, the issuance of such visas has gone from under 1 million to over 3 million -- an increase exceeding 200 percent. However, the number of officers issuing visas -- both immigrant and nonimmigrant -- has decreased slightly during this same period. At the present time, there are about 360 full-time Foreign Service officers supported by 1000 indigenous personnel (i.e. Foreign Service locals) handling visa work. All in all, the cost of maintain- ing this function came to $35.6 million in FY 1975. - 89 - C. INTERAGENCY COOPERATION One of the mandates of the Domestic Council Committee is to assess the cooperative relationships among various agencies having responsibility for some aspect of illegal immigration. The implication of such an approach is that more can be done without: (1) new legal authorities, or (2) significant increases in resources. The most recent precedent for this approach has its basis in legislation passed in 1972 which required cooperation between the Social Security Administration and the Immigration and Naturalization Service. One can properly regard this arrangement as an example of what is involved in such undertakings. The experience must be viewed from the standpoint of what structural deficiencies and competing considerations have been manifested, and how these difficulties should be overcome in any future proposals. 1972 Social Security Amendments Since the overriding incentive for illegal aliens to enter or remain in the United States is the desire to work, and since employment opportunities for the vast majority of workers is limited to those who possess social security numbers, in the past much debate centered on improvements in social security card issuance. Historically, the INS had sought to preclude access to a social security number by illegals, while the Social Security Administration (SSA) - 90 - had resisted becoming part of a control system over aliens. The SSA's traditional view has been that citizenship is not an issue in determining eligibility for SS benefits. Rather, the purpose of SS legislation is to insure that with certain specified exceptions, all remunerative work is covered by the appropriate provisions of law. Further, since there is no specific exclusion in the law for aliens working illegally, they are considered to be covered. The possession of a social security number in no way conveys an authority for a person to work, yet in fact, the social security card serves as a work permit. Prior to the amendment of the Social Security Act in 1972, applicants for a SS number could obtain one on the spot in SS district offices. The foregoing was well known by illegal aliens and it would probably be accurate to guess that the great majority of illegals today have valid SS cards despite recent changes in the application procedure. The 1972 Social Security Act Amendments required the Secretary of HEW to "take affirmative measures to assure that social security account numbers will, to the maximum extent practicable, be assigned to all members of appropriate groups or categories of individuals." As originally envisioned, this provision was intended to exclude aliens who were prohibited to work from receiving a social security account number. However, many institutions, both within the government and outside it, now use the social security - 91 - account number as an identifying mechanism. The SSA has been somewhat helpless in trying to stop or reverse this process. In the arrangements worked out between INS and SSA to implement the provisions of the 1972 amendments, the procedures called for persons applying for a card, who had foreign birth, to prove their status with regard to the immigration and nationality laws. If they needed a card but were not authorized to work, their account number was annotated to that effect. If earnings were reported to the account, SSA referred the information to INS. During the initial months of the new SSA application procedure, an average of 500 applications a day were referred to INS for checking; in all, a total of about 40,000 applica- tions were referred in the period March 1974 to February 1975. Following the implementation of the Privacy Act of 17/ 1974 , these referrals fell off sharply; today they average about 10 - 20 a week. At present, whenever an applicant is hesitant or reluctant to provide proof of citizenship or legal alien status he is informed that the information could be referred to INS for an illegal alien check. If the individual withdraws the application, all 17 / The Privacy Act does not cover "illegal aliens, so there are no restrictions regarding exchange of information between various agencies concerning such individuals. However, the SSA does not know whether they are dealing with a legal resident or not. Since the Privacy Act covers legal resident aliens, the SSA is carefully revising its regulations to cover exchanges of information with INS. - 92 - data already submitted by the alien are returned and no referral is made to the INS. Only after complying with the provisions of the Privacy Act and the individual's expressed desire to pursue the application are doubtful cases referred to INS and even then the SSA will wait just one week before processing the application. Following the March 1974 implementation of regulations and before the Privacy Act became effective, the data on all SS applications abandoned following a request for proof of status was routinely passed to INS. There were some 39,000 applications abandoned under these conditions in the period March 1974 to February 1975. The SSA control system cannot detect the use of someone else's valid SS number by an illegal alien or anyone else for that matter. SSA records are essentially confidential pursuant to the Privacy Act. While illegal aliens are not covered by the Privacy Act, a prudent bureaucrat would be careful not to make a mistake involving a U.S. citizen or a legal alien resident. Concern over the requirements of this legislation has essentially brought the cooperative effort to a standstill. While SSA continues to screen applicants and does annotate accounts, very little information is being sent to the INS. The one salutary aspect of this program may be in the area of abandoned applications which are thought to be indicative of deterred ineligible aliens. However, this may not be true in light of the fact that a number of abandoned applications - 93 - turned out to be those of resident legal aliens or citizens as a subsequent check with INS revealed. It was this develop- ment which prompted the SSA to stop making referrals to INS, unless the person's permission was received to pursue the application in such a manner. During the period of March 1974 to February 1975, the SSA issued 23,000 cards for which the account was annotated "work prohibited". One thousand five hundred cases of reported earnings were referred to INS for that period. This program has had an uneven history. The following problems exist in the current procedures: 1. Those persons under 18 claiming native birth are not required to show any documentation. The SSA did conduct a study to validate this experiment. 2. For those over 18 who claim citizenship, a check with INS that only allows seven days for turn-around before issuance of a card is not realistic given the volume of work involved in such processing. 3. The application form for an SS number only requires a date and place of birth -- it does not require a statement of citizenship or alien status. As the system works now, there is an inherent bias which favors the false claimant. Although the card carries a warning regarding those who willfully furnish false information, the SSA does not prosecute illegal aliens offering false information to obtain a number. They are prepared to prosecute those who intend to defraud the system of benefits; however, they doubt that U.S. Attorneys would be willing to prosecute just fraudulent applicants. 4. There is a minimum time delay of six months before earnings to an annotated account will be reported - 94 - to INS. The INS places these investigations in a low priority due to the time delay involved. Until such time as new regulations are written and promulgated by SSA, the impact of this cooperative effort will be minimal. However, the following possibilities should be considered to improve the quality and usefulness of information exchange: 1. The SSA has collected its information on abandoned applications centrally. The SSA should conduct a study of this information. One area to analyze is the particular districts which have the largest number of abandoned applications as compared with those areas that are perceived to be the locales of large numbers of illegal aliens. 2. INS must give greater attention to working leads on annotated accounts with reported earnings. Once a test of these leads' workability has been completed, a judgment can be made about their worthiness for future efforts. 3. INS could supply information to SSA on prospective overstays, and SSA would compare this data with its data on annotated accounts with reported earnings. 4. The SSA could, within its own system, compare data on employers with reporting problems with its data on annotated accounts with reported earnings, and make referrals to INS. 5. INS could refer to SSA the names of employers who are thought to be hiring illegal aliens. SSA, in turn, could compare this information with either its data on annotated accounts with reported earnings or its data on employers with reporting problems. All of these possibilities would have to be tested. Their success would depend upon the relative costs involved in carrying on such efforts on a large scale. However, they offer the possibility for improved information exchange in the context of these agencies' current capabilities. - 95 - The experience with the SSA/INS cooperative efforts is instructive in a number of respects. First and foremost, future policymakers should be extremely wary of drawing agencies whose central purpose is not enforcement into arrangements which require them to act in ways contrary to their historical nature. The SSA has always seen itself as a service agency, and thus has been slow to adjust to the requirements inherent in the amendments of 1972. Secondly, when such arrangements are undertaken, proper consideration must be given to the funding implications involved. This is not always a case of additional personnel. Thirdly, the success of these efforts can turn on nothing more than how such agencies collect and organize information. If there is not sufficient compatability and management attention to information gaps and procedural difficulties, such arrangements are probably doomed to failure. And finally, all these factors would indicate that it is far more desirable to foster cooperative relationships between agencies whose operations are essentially enforcement or compliance in nature, and thus share a common interest in related problems. In this sense, the operations and legislative mandate of the Bureau of Security and Consular Affairs, the Internal Revenue Service, and the Wage and Hour Enforcement Division, are more akin to such endeavors. - 96 - Department of State Responsibility for bringing persons into this country either as immigrants or nonimmigrants is shared between the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Department of State. A crucial element in improving our ability to cope with illegal migration rests with efforts that deal with the problem at the source. Prevention at this stage is not only cost effective, but in many ways, the most humane approach. Little coordinated study has been made of the characteristics of nonimmigrant applicant motivations and goals or of whether our procedures contribute to fraud. Insuffi- cient effort has been made to inform host governments of the extent and nature of the illegal entry problem. There has been little exploration of systems for dealing efficiently with large numbers of persons. There has been little recognition of the contradiction between effective informa- tion programs about the United States and curbing illegal immigration. In the absence of such systematic guidance, consuls engaged in visa activities have developed their own methods of coping with local pressures and making accurate judgments. Such methods are not sufficient. Despite all the time pressures involved in such work, the rise in workloads, the attendant resource situation, and the sometimes sensitive nature of this work, the real source of difficulty in improving the overall effectiveness of the - 97 visa issuing function lies with the priority assigned to these activities within the Department of State. In fact, certain management considerations may work in a contrary manner. For example, since there are subsequent time con- suming procedural activities to be accomplished in the event of a visa refusal, at busy posts there is a built in bias to find in favor of the applicant as often as specific case circumstances makes possible. And if this is coupled with management's not giving due consideration to the extra effort involved in denials when assigning staffing levels for high fraud posts, there may be a reluctance at such posts 18/ to increase denial rates to more realistic levels. There is increasing evidence that illegal immigration and its causes will be a major consideration in our relations with a number of developing nations for the foreseeable future. New policy guidelines on immigration-related matters as well as specific action proposals to foster new objectives aimed at relieving the causes and incidence of illegal immigration are needed. Visa issuance and fraud in certain countries must be given higher priority within the Department 18/ Since it is specifically intended to be an instrument governing and controlling the movement of aliens into the United States, the Immigration and Nationality Act assigns responsibility for visa issuance to "a consular officer." However, management considerations have also resulted in the diminution of individual visa officer responsibility. To speed up and simplify the visa issuing process many posts, including those in Mexico, now issue visitor visas which often carry the facsimile signature of someone other than the responsible visa officer. - 98 - of State SO that only for the most compelling political con- siderations should action against visa fraud not be vigorously pressed or made a country priority. Country-by-country visa abuse experience must be considered in developing new guide- lines. The following are specific recommendations which can be taken to ameliorate the problem of illegal immigration. Some of them require giving higher attention and priority to relationships and programs which already exist. In some other instances, they involve making current initiatives more com- prehensive in nature. And finally, there are some new approaches of a pilot nature. 1. Policy a. The President should issue instructions to ambassadors of major sending countries to accord the highest priority to visa issuance functions and to reaffirm and emphasize that Chiefs of Consular Sections utilize the widest latitude and discretion in their areas of responsibility. These instructions should point out that visa issuance and refusal are delegated by law solely to the consular officer. b. High fraud posts must be given high management attention with respect to personnel and budgetary priorities to, inter alia, permit the use of foreign service officers in the initial screen- ing of applicants. C. Prospective students' financial capability for the duration of the course of study, applicability of the training to future employment possibilities in the native land, and general skills at the time of application should be given care- ful consideration in the issuance of student visas. - 99 - 2. Operations a. All high fraud posts as well as potential problem consulates must have access to a centralized computer 19/ capability. b. In identifying developing trends and potential problem areas, the Visa Office should have the benefit of a management information system. Such a system would, inter alia, monitor use of multiple entry visas at high fraud posts, a practice which may not be justified. C. Referrals are the means by which the Ambassador or one of his subordinates requests a consular officer to accord "special consideration" to certain visa applicants. With regard to referrals, each post should be required to keep a careful system of documentation describing the nature of the recommendation, its importance and its status if a visa is granted on such a basis. To the maximum extent practicable, all persons receiving a visa on such a basis should be required to appear before a consular officer upon the return to the country placing responsibility upon the individual Consulate to prove that the procedure does not compromise the visa issuance process. d. All high fraud posts should have investigative staffs to bolster the screening and interviewing process. 19/ This capability would enable posts to check applicants against various "lookout" lists. In addition, the Depart- ment of State keeps information for two years on all applicants who are denied a visa. - 100 - 3. Department of Justice/Department of State Cooperation a. To create a more formalized communications process between the two agencies involved in controlling the entry of aliens, the Bureau of Security and Consular Affairs and the Immigration and Naturalization Service should hold regularly scheduled meetings, perhaps as often as once a month. Meetings should not be confined to central office personnel alone, but should be extended to the field for personnel involved in fraud control and matters of mutual interest. b. The Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Bureau of Security and Consular Affairs should work more closely in the development of fraud profiles for illegal alien sending countries. C. Fraud information should increasingly be stressed in the immigrant as well as nonimmigrant areas. Problems in nonimmigrant visa issuance become apparent in the practices and circumstances of applicants for immigrant status. d. INS and State should seek more systematic use of information on all persons denied admission as well as all visa abusers who are apprehended. e. Visa issuing officers should make use of notations and other information on the visa as a means of aiding immigration inspectors in their determination about an - 101 - applicant's intentions as well as whether the individual presenting himself for admission is the valid holder of the documentation presented. 4. Actions Within Countries a. Each embassy with visa fraud problems should enlist the host country's political cooperation. This might include: -- Development projects aimed at areas that have been identified as areas of out-migration. -- Actions taken within the government to dis- courage the abuse of documents and represen- tation. -- Host country cooperation in improving the overall quality of documentation. -- Licensing of travel agents and others who traffic in fraudulent documents. -- Vigorous prosecution of fraud cases involving the assigning of indigenous personnel to such cases. b. The U. S. Information Service should sensitize the indigenous populace to the problems of illegal immigration and the unscrupulous persons who visit hardship on their victims. Specifically, an organized campaign should be developed to: - 102 - -- Inform the press of widespread abuses of persons who seek middlemen in an effort to obtain a visa. - Encourage academics to conduct research on the causes of migration within the country and out of it. C. The Immigration and Naturalization Service with the State Department should take steps to establish closer liaison with the immigration authorities of other countries to gain better use of departure control systems including exchange of information to detect fraudulent documents or imposters. Internal Revenue Service Other cooperative efforts are already underway. The Internal Revenue Service is presently conducting two programs in the illegal alien area. One program is aimed at appre- hended illegal aliens and the other is aimed at the employers of illegal aliens. 1. Apprehended Illegal Aliens 90 Day Test The test program which ran from March 4, 1974 to June 7, 1974, was conducted in San Diego, Dallas, Chicago, and New York City, in conjunction with INS. This test provided that for 90 days, one Revenue Officer or one Revenue Representative in each of the participating districts would spend an entire workday at the local INS - 103 - detention facility where apprehended illegal aliens are processed to determine potential tax liability. The results were: Total No. of Aliens Interviewed 1,699 Total No. of Returns Secured 1,090 Total Amount of Tax Assessed $247,696 Total Amount of Tax Collected $168,469 Since this test indicated a high frequency of noncompliance among apprehended illegal aliens, though of relatively modest amounts (about $140) on the average, an on-going program was developed. The new program, with basically the same guidelines as the test, was implemented on April 12, 1976, in the 15 cities where INS processes the highest volume of illegal aliens. They are: Chicago, Illinois; Chula Vista, California; Dallas, Texas; Denver, Colorado; El Centro, California; El Paso, Texas; Miami, Florida; Newark, New Jersey; New Orleans, Louisiana; New York, New York; San Antonio, Texas; Seattle, Washington; - 104 - Swanton, Vermont; Washington, D. C.; and San Francisco, California. 2. Employers of Illegal Aliens Another test began on October 30, 1975 and will be completed by June 30, 1976. It is being conducted in seven areas: Baltimore, Chicago, Los Angeles, Dallas, Manhattan, Cleveland, and Jacksonville. With the joint cooperation of IRS, Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and the Social Security Adminis- tration (SSA), it involves securing the payment of withholding taxes by employers of illegal aliens. Where a common employer is shown for a specified number of employees (five in some districts, two in others) in INS apprehension records, the records will be forwarded to the participating IRS district office. IRS will determine whether the employer has filed Form 941, employer's quarterly report. If no return has been filed, a revenue officer calls on the employer to ensure that all federal tax obligations have been and are being met by the employer. If a return has been filed, a "request for social security earnings information" will be forwarded to SSA and one of the following procedures will be completed: a. If the alien's wages were properly recorded, the case will be closed. - 105 - b. If the wages were not reported, the case will be referred to the Audit Division for possible field con- tact by an agent for eventual audit if warranted. If the wages were under-reported and/or a possibility of fraud exists, the case will be forwarded to the Intelligence Division for possible field contact by a special agent. Statistics for this test have not been compiled at this time. However, should the statistics for the test prove to be encouraging, consideration would be given to continuing this program on an expanded basis. Department of Labor Since the passage of the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1938, the Department of Labor has been quite successful in developing a relatively high level of compliance in the area of wage and hour enforcement. In fact, it represents one of the government's most successful regulation attempts. However, a rather serious problem of backlogs has developed in the last two years for a number of the laws that are administered by the Wage and Hour Division partially due to the passage of a number of new pieces of legislation. since 1960, which extend the Department of Labor's responsibilities. This has been coupled with a stable budgetary situation yielding only minimal increases in compliance investigators for wage and hour enforcement over the past fifteen years or SO. However, - 106 - wage and hour enforcement is a primary area for increased enforcement. 1. The Farm Labor Contract Registration Act, as amended December, 1974, contains a provision pro- hibiting the knowing employment of illegal aliens. A similar provision should be incorporated into all other important labor standards' and labor relations' laws, and should be accompanied with commensurate increases in resources for enforcing such provisions. 2. The INS and Wage and Hour Enforcement Division of the Department of Labor jointly should sponsor a pilot project in a large metropolitan area where there is evidence that substantial numbers of illegal aliens reside. The greater New York City area is an example since there are currently less than 50 compliance investigators working there. It would involve: -- Increased and more systematic exchange of information. -- Mutual targeting of employment establishments. --- Priority assignment of personnel in areas which may be of mutual benefit. - 107 - Internal Actions: INS In addition to more effective coordination with the above agencies, INS can take steps internally to more optimally allocate its resources and improve its ability to cope with illegal immigration. Although the Service has sought additional resources, it has also recognized the need to improve current methods of operation. Conse- quently, a number of evaluations and consultant studies have been undertaken. INS is often buffeted between competing pressures. This competition is markedly shown in the inspection for admission process. At ports of entry, emphasis is frequently placed on speedy facilitation of entry to the detriment of careful screening of applicants. Screening for fraud can be a laborious process and tends to mitigate against facili- tation. However, to some extent, this can be overcome by careful staffing, training and motivation of personnel. The Service should not maximize its presence at all ports of entry, but instead assign its personnel to critical and heavily used points in a manner which deploys them at peak traffic times. Currently about 91 percent of all inspections are performed at land border ports and about 65 percent of these are along the Southwest border. Illegal entry is detected through ports along the Southern border eight times as often - 108 - as at ports along the Northern border. In FY 1974, for every workyear devoted to primary inspection 207 aliens were denied entry on the Northern border and 1,839 aliens were denied entry on the Southwest border. However, only 23 percent of the inspections workforce is stationed along the Southwest border, while 37 percent of all the inspections 20/ workforce is on the Northern border. Along the border, the Service is also investigating the efficacy of using certain border patrol staffing patterns that involve flooding areas at peak times in an effort to maximize apprehensions. This effort should be coupled with continuing experiments for improving the configuration and placement of sensor systems. Finally, some joint ADP and Telecommunication develop- ment and sharing between INS, the U. S. Customs Service and the Drug Enforcement Administration has a wide range of potential benefits. Some INS and Customs personnel at field offices around the country are frequently co-located; the use of remote ADP terminals and the development of a common communication network could result in significant cost savings. For example, it appears feasible that INS' Alien Documentation, Identification and Telecommunication system could use the existing Customs Service's ADP and communi- cation network. 20/ There are 147 land ports on the U.S.-Canadian border and 40 on the U.S.-Mexican border. - 109 - Therefore, it is recommended that INS: 1. Develop expanded and ongoing training of supervisory and journeyman personnel. This is particularly important for an agency which is undergoing so much change. There will be considerable turnover within INS over the next two years. Added to the large numbers of new personnel received in recent budgets are the impending retirements brought about by the Law Enforcement Officers Retirement Act. 2. Continue to place emphasis on evaluation techniques, process studies and simulation models that offer the prospect of improving the current deployment of resources. In striving to achieve this goal, INS should take full advantage of the wide range of technical services that are available within the federal government. 3. Investigate the feasibility of applying alternative enforcement techniques. This could include but would not be confined to: expansion of preclearance inspection operations abroad, development of specialized investi- gative units to combat smuggling, and expanded use of investigations at overseas posts. - 110 - D. DISINCENTIVES While further interagency efforts are quite necessary and hold promise for improving overall immigration enforce- ment, such initiatives must be augmented by legislative improvements which seek to diminish the strength of the pull factors drawing people to enter and remain illegally in the U. S. Stronger checks, referred to as disincentives are intended to (1) create additional impediments for those persons who are contemplating illegal entry or who intend to violate their status while in the United States; (2) deny various benefits to persons who clearly act in circumvention of the law; and (3) attempt to lessen the effect of the immigration law where it currently works in a manner contrary to its stated purposes. As current conditions exist, there are many persons who use their very illegality to gain immigration status and preference under the system. This is unfair and tends to undermine the whole immigration system. It is unrealistic to hope that we can be completely successful in preventing an alien from entering the United States illegally, or remaining in violation of law if he succeeds in entering lawfully. However, the problem can be mitigated by reducing the incentives for illegal immigration. Those incentives are essentially economic. - 111 - If potential immigration law violators cannot find employment, they may be discouraged from ever attempting to come in the first place. Moreover, if the illegal alien cannot use dilatory tactics to build up equities under immigration law, there will also be less incentive to remain. Finally, if various social benefits are unavailable, there will be almost no opportunity to pro- long stay in the United States. But a fair and balanced system of enforcement and penalties must also deprive employers of the advantages gained by employing illegal aliens. Therefore, it is recommended that a disincentive program involving a range of approaches be adopted. 1. Sanctions on Employers The preponderance of available information suggests that the major cause underlying illegal migration is the aliens search for employment and economic opportunity. The vast majority of aliens in illegal status who are appre- hended by the INS are either working, seeking work or have been employed at one time or another. In addition, domestic employers' willingness to hire illegal aliens, in some cases actively recruit them, is undoubtedly a significant part of the economic forces which exacerbate the flow of illegal aliens. Those agencies concerned with administering - 112 - and regulating the flow of aliens into the country are con- vinced that only when we begin to cope with the economic magnet that draws individuals here will we be in a position to have some control of illegal immigration. This over- riding consideration prompted Congress to introduce legisla- tion which would impose sanctions upon employers of illegal aliens. This legislation, commonly known as the "Rodino" bill, has passed in the House on two occasions, but has never been acted upon by the Senate. The proposed penalties are conditioned upon the employer "knowingly" hiring the illegal alien. 21/ This type of legislation is perceived to have a number of beneficial aspects. It sanctions employers who currently bear no responsibility for hiring of individuals illegally in the country, thus eliminating a discriminatory and contradictory feature of the current law, namely, it is illegal for an unauthorized alien to accept employment but it is not illegal for an employer to hire such a person. Further- more, such sanctions would achieve a high level of voluntary compliance simply by being legislated as federal policy. As this legislation has languished in two different Congresses because of Senate inaction, this type of approach has become more and more controversial. Initially there was a wide range of opinion about whether civil penalties would be sufficient or if the stronger criminal penalties would be 21/ Such a provision does apply in the hiring of farm contract labor. See p. 106. - 113 - required. The INS and the Department of Justice opposed the "civil penalties" only approach on the grounds that they would not be a sufficient deterrent alone. In addition, the great administrative and financial burden of collecting penalties would not be sufficiently offset by civil legis- lation. The current legislation in the House (H.R. 8713) con- tains a compromise. This compromise suggests a civil and criminal penalty combination similar in nature to other Federal provisions such as the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 666), the Federal Aviation Act (49 U.S.C. 1471) and the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969 (30 U.S.C. 819(a)). The latter, for example, provides for an initial civil penalty to be assessed by the Secretary of HEW for the violation of mandatory health and safety standards. In addition, this act requires a hearing, provides for the compromise of the amount of the penalty and permits suit for the enforcement in U.S. district court. More specifically, criminal penalties are provided in the event of willful violation. The result is a three step plan -- citation, civil penalty and then a criminal penalty -- for violation of the law. The Senate Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturalization has, for the first time since the enactment of the Immigration Act of 1965, commenced hearings on widespread immigration reform. - 114 - On March 4, 1976, Senator James O. Eastland, Chairman of both the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturalization introduced S. 3074, a comprehensive bill dealing with the problem of the illegal alien. With regard to sanctions against employers, Mr. Eastland proposes direct civil penalties -- up to $500 for the first offense and up to $1,000 for each sub- sequent offense. Again, the proposal is conditioned upon the employer "knowingly" hiring the illegal alien. The imposition of sanctions against employers is most contro- versial even though the Rodino measures have passed the House overwhelmingly in both the 92d and 93d Congresses. The formidable opposition which has mounted in the 94th Congress has stalled action by the Rules Committee. The opposition comes principally from employer groups such as the American Farm Bureau Federation, which feel employers are to be compelled to become enforcement "agents" of federal law; from minority groups, principally Hispanic, who feel their members will be discriminated against in employment practices and religious groups including the United States Catholic Conference which also cannot accept sanctions without protection against discrimination and without a meaningful amnesty provision to protect the aliens and their families from mass exodus or deportation. - 115 - Many others are concerned, about the difficulties inherent in enforcing this type of law, and feel it may be unwise from a policy standpoint accordingly. However, the most thorny issue seems to be the per- ceived problem of discrimination in hiring practices that such legislation may bring about. One means by which discrimination in hiring practices could be avoided is the use of some type of identification card which would be required of every applicant for employment. Such a suggestion has seriously raised further opposition. Opposition to this scheme runs the gamut from civil libertarians to organized labor. However, in response to this concern, the House has included in the "Rodino" bill a provision that authorizes the Attorney General to bring civil actions when he has reasonable cause to believe that an employer has engaged in employment discrimination based on national origin. Although this Committee is sensitive to the controversial aspects of the various pieces of proposed legislation, it remains convinced that some control over this problem must begin with one of its causes -- employer willingness to hire illegal aliens. A great deal of emotion has attended the debate on this subject. And yet, a precedent for this type of approach was established with the enactment into law - 116 - of a provision in the Farm Labor Contract Registration Act prohibiting "knowing" employment of illegal aliens. The Committee finds no compelling reasons for why one sector of the economy should be singled out for such legislation. As the foregoing discussion of the various instruments proposed for implementing such an approach indicate, there are strengths and weaknesses to each; the Committee recog- nizing this has chosen to avoid recommending the specific means by which such legislation should be carried out. However, it does recommend that appropriate means be developed to: 1. Penalize employers of illegal aliens. 2. Prohibit use of U.S. Government funds for employment and training of aliens who are not authorized to work. 3. Disallow for federal income tax purposes any business deduction for wages paid to an illegal alien. 2. Combating Dilatory Tactics The longer the illegal alien is able to remain in the United States, the greater is his reward. For this reason, it has been said by immigration lawyers, "the name of the game is time." The alien of course needs time to work so he can earn a sufficient amount of money to employ a lawyer - 117 - or travel agent to help him become a lawful permanent resident alien so he will not become a public charge, and to support his family abroad until he is able to bring them to the United States. He may also need time to obtain a job that would qualify him for a labor certification, to marry a lawful resident alien or United States citizen or divorce his spouse abroad and remarry, or to become the parent of a United States citizen child so that he will be exempt from the labor certification requirement. Also the passage of time may enable the illegal alien to acquire equities so that he may become eligible for adjustment of status or regularization of his status through registry or suspension of deportation. Because time is such a valuable ingredient, it puts a premium on delays, adjournments, dilatory tactics and other techniques of evasion, including frivolous appeals. The following recommendations will lessen the possibilities of waiting out the system: 1. Amend suspension of deportation provisions to preclude consideration of physical presence acquired in the United States subsequent to initiation of explusion proceedings. - 118 - 2. Change the law to provide that the priority date for the issuance of a visa number will regress, or that the waiting time for a visa application will be extended, in proportion to the time spent in the United States subsequent to the institution of deportation proceedings. 3. Discontinue the statutory provision that automatically grants a stay of deportation upon the filing in a Circuit Court of Appeals of a petition to review a deportation order. 3. Sanctions on Illegal Aliens More can be done to discourage individuals from pro- fiting by violating the law, or manipulating the law to gain experience that may entitle them to preference under it. 1. Make violations of status or unauthorized employ- ment grounds for barring persons from adjustment of status within the United States. * 2. Require certain students to return to their native lands for a period of at least two years before they can become eligible for immigration to the United States. *P.L. 94-571, signed October 20, 1976, contains a provision which bars adjustment of status for an alien (other than an immediate relative) who continues in or accepts unauthorized employment. - 119 - 3. Narrow the categories of aliens who may be classified as a nonimmigrant student. 4. Disallow, for purposes of labor certification and occupational visa preference, work experience gained by an alien while illegally in the United States. 5. Require a labor certification for the parents of a United States citizen child under 21 in the Western Hemisphere.* 6. Eliminate marriage after the institution of deportation proceedings as a reason for adjust- ing status from that of an alien to permanent resident. 7. Forbid the return to the United States of a deported alien unless he has reimbursed the United States for the estimated expense of his deportation. 4. Denying Social Benefits A comprehensive approach to the problem also requires that illegal aliens be denied the means to remain in the country. However, measures in this area should not be so harsh that emergency medicare treatment or the like would be precluded. * P.L. 94-571, signed October 20, 1976, provides for such a requirement. - 120 - 1. Define "public charge" to include aliens receiving public assistance whether or not there is a requirement to reimburse the governmental agency that furnished the assistance. 2. Deny federal benefit programs to illegal aliens such as is currently provided for in the case of food stamps. 5. Enhancing Enforcement Enforcement of the law can be enhanced by providing greater authorities or making greater use of already available mechanisms similar to that of other federal agencies. 1. Authorize summary seizure and forfeiture of vessels, vehicles, and aircraft used for smuggling aliens. 2. Include in the criminal penalty imposed for counterfeiting the following: border crossing and alien registration cards and other documents used for entry into or as evidence of stay in the United States. 3. Require visitors and students to post departure bonds with American Consuls. Most of these items would not have a major budgetary impact, since they, in large part, only seek to create additional impediments to those who are violating their - 121 - immigration status. The major exception is, of course, any provision which would penalize employers of illegal aliens. The budgetary impact for such a provision is a matter of record in congressional testimony. It may be more appropriate to deal with some disincentive concepts by regulation or executive order, rather than by seeking legislation. On the other hand, it may be desirable to bolster the food stamp prohibition, which is currently governed by regulation, with the force of law. Moreover, various federal benefit programs should be studied and clarified in the overall context of aliens' rights. Whatever the means, there is a clear need for introducing greater rationality into the immigration laws which often work at cross purposes, or in ways never envisioned. 6. Changes Having An Indirect Impact Any major revision of our immigration and naturalization laws must include consideration of the extent to which these laws no longer reflect contemporary standards and thinking. As current conditions exist, immigration investigators may spend considerable time investigating allegations involving the use of marijuana or moral turpitude for an applicant for naturaliza- tion. These efforts are counterproductive and detract from more important enforcement tasks. Thus, consideration must also be given to those changes which would streamline the immigration process of its anachronistic provisions and thereby free manpower and resources. Some examples would be: the elimination of mandatory excludability and deportability for possession of small amounts of - 122 - marijuana, a statute of limitations in deportation, and the restriction of the Attorney General's authority to waive inadmissibility because of technical defects in immigrant visas. E. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Immigration law enforcement today is directed almost totally at the problem of illegal immigration. The agencies with primary responsibility for enforcing the law, the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Department of State, have a long history of involvement with the problems of the United States - Mexico border and illegal immigration in that context. The newer illegal migration from other nations requires different tactics and methods. Our enforcement efforts are not sufficiently effective to undermine the push-pull forces which create and sustain illegal immigration. Significant improvements must be made in several areas. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Prevention of entry should remain the foremost enforcement goal of both the INS and the Department of State from a cost, a legal, and a community impact point of view. To achieve an acceptable level of prevention will require additional resources for both agencies, and - 123 - improved management techniques (see pages 98-102 and 107-109), and higher priority for the visa function with the Department of State. 2. Several federal agencies share varying degrees of responsibility in illegal alien enforcement. Enforcement efforts would be significantly strengthened by continuing and expanding the cooperative interagency efforts underway. Specific, detailed recommendations are discussed above in pages 93-106. 3. Additional resources and improved coordination must be augmented with substantial legislative action in five important areas: sanctions on employers, combating dilatory tactics, sanctions on illegal aliens, denying social benefits and enhancing enforcement. Discussed on pages 111-120, these changes would rationalize the current penalty structure directed at illegal entry to reflect a goal of slowing the flow of illegal aliens. 4. In the longer run the Immigration and Nationality Act should be fundamentally reviewed in order to examine the extent to which the current law and its enforcement meets policies and values of the society in which it exists today. - 124 - CHAPTER IV -- THE ILLEGAL ALIEN: A SOFT PORTRAIT Law enforcement is the first line of domestic response to illegal immigration. However, sizeable illegal immigration raises additional questions for the society which merit con- sideration. To postulate the implications of a significant illegal population in our society requires information derived from research. Current studies of the illegal alien can be compared to a series of preliminary sketches. Each is drawn from a different perspective on the subject and none can stand by itself as a valid representation of the whole. The intent of this chapter is to examine existing data from many sources in an effort to develop the foundations for assessing their effects on our society. In this way we can determine which of the elements are missing, incomplete, misplaced or of questionable value. A. DATA DEFICIENCIES The task forces concerned with assessing the domestic impact of illegal aliens reviewed a wide range of information which has been developed about the impact of the illega Much of this information is based on opinion rather than hard data. Writers, researchers, and officials who have been close to the issue may be very perceptive in their analyses but it is impossible to confirm independently the accuracy of their - 125 - judgments. Attached as an Appendix A to this report is a comprehensive listing and summary of the topic areas and sources of information which is available on the impact of the illegal. * We make no value judgment on the relative validity of these sources. Among them, however, are several studies which represent sound research efforts and which we believe, despite the serious problems described below, provide some objective basis for setting forth a "soft portrait" of the illegal alien given the data available to date. The data and therefore the portrait is severely handi- capped by the enormous methodological problems inherent in any attempt to count and describe a clandestine population. Every attempt will be made by the individual to mask his illegal status. Proof of legal status would have to be volun- teered and no researcher can demand such information of an uncooperative subject. Moreover, substantial numbers of illegals may be highly mobile and may not have one fixed address for a long period of time. Therefore, even locating a random sample of this population poses almost insurmountable difficulties. A second problem is the absence of a suitable interview environment. Two of the studies reviewed were based on inter- views conducted at INS detention centers with groups of apprehended illegal aliens. *Prepared and submitted by the Immigration and Naturalization Service. - 126 1 The North-Houstoun study used 793 apprehended illegal aliens, 16 years of age or older who had worked for wages for at least two weeks in the United States. Any sample taken from the population of apprehended illegal aliens is automati- cally biased by current INS enforcement strategy. The number of illegal aliens apprehended by INS at a certain time in a certain place varies with any number of factors, including local priorities, the types of "leads" on hand, the amount of money available for detention and deportation, detention space available, INS manpower available, etc. It should also be noted that any group of apprehendees will overstate the proportion of Mexicans in the overall illegal alien population due to INS enforcement policy. Because of these numerous factors which affect INS apprehensions, it is impossible for apprehensions to reflect the illegal population as a whole. For example, far less detention space (if any) is avail- able for the detention of females, and INS policies on transporting females are sufficiently cumbersome so that there is a tendency not to apprehend women when the number of males that can be apprehended already exceeds the capabilities of the available INS manpower. This operational reality influences not only the data obtained in the North-Houstoun study about sex, but also all other data obtained, especially that on the participation of illegal aliens in the labor market, and in the tax, social security, health, education, and welfare systems. Unemployment runs higher for certain foreign-born women, - 127 - and it is therefore quite possible that more women may be at home rather than in places of business which are more likely targets for INS enforcement efforts because of the greater likely pay-off. Moreover, the unemployed are far more likely recipients of welfare, food stamps, health benefits, etc. The unemployed illegal aliens group was not, however, touched by the study. Because the group surveyed by the North-Houstoun study had been employed, it can be concluded that this study is significantly biased against indicating any impact illegal aliens might have on welfare or social services. Pursuant to a 1972 study by the Mexican Government, 22 / researchers interviewed persons at the border who were return- ing voluntarily. Illegal aliens from Mexico may misrepresent where they live in Mexico because they wish to avoid being returned to the interior. For some obvious reasons, some apprehended illegals may not want to discuss how, when, and where they crossed the border, or how much they had earned. 22 7 After a meeting in June of 1972 between Presidents Nixon and Echeverria, both countries established interdepartmental study commissions to analyze and evaluate the problems posed by Mexican migration to the United States. The Mexican group, during the course of its study, interviewed several returning Mexican migrants who were granted voluntary departure. Because of this factor alone, this study suffers from the same problem of representativeness that similar United States studies have suffered from, also. This study will be referred to through- out the chapter. - 128 - Probably the closest thing to a suitable environment was present in the small scale study performed by Dr. Wayne Cornelius. Persons who had returned from illegal work in the United States were interviewed at home in Mexico. Yet, these people may differ in significant ways from illegal aliens who do not return home. Interviewers explained that they were not representatives of the Government of Mexico and would keep responses confidential. However, the study was a collection of preliminary findings of a 22-month study. This particular phase covered a period of 15 months. The findings were tentative since a final seven-month phase was yet to be completed. The research was carried out in small communities ranging in size from 490 to 4,500 inhabitants and covered only one state in Mexico. The author points out that the findings of a case study of the type conducted are always subject to challenge on the grounds that the communities selected for inclusion in the study were not in some way representative of the majority of rural communities in Mexico which serve as points of origin for migrants to the United States. Most of the persons interviewed, who migrated to the U.S. were single men. Married men interviewed did not take their wives and children with them. The author is also quick to point out that persons being interviewed during this study were those who had successfully entered the U.S., had been - 129 - employed, and had remitted part of their earnings to families at home. Another problem is that studies tend to stress the undocumented worker from Mexico. This is certainly the largest single group, but it is unlikely that it forms as large a percentage as is commonly perceived. In this profile, studies limited to illegal aliens from Mexico will be separated from studies which attempt to treat the wider spectrum of nation- ality. Nonetheless more must be known about the Mexican migration. In reviewing illegal Mexican immigration to California, W. Tim Dagodag conducted a study of migration from a number of Mexican states to one United States state (California), basing the study on data collected by INS from apprehended illegal aliens. As described previously, this approach will severely bias the male-female distribution, a factor recognized in the study. Further, over 77% of the surveyed were apprehended with 72 hours of their illegal entry into California, a period of time too short for a high percentage to either locate employment or to have access to the American social support system. All of those in the study were either currently employed or were actually seeking employment, presenting significant potential competition for those segments of society least able to protect themselves. - 130 - Another approach is represented by the San Diego County study which is based primarily on "best estimates" made by the various county agencies and anecdotes, rather than statistical methodology. The methodology consisted largely of interviews with "knowledgeable persons," i.e., members of the San Diego Immigration Council and their various contacts within the county agencies and in county community affairs. In the few cases where samples were taken, they were often too small to provide statistically sound results or were not chosen randomly. It also appears from the report that each agency and person interviewed may have had varying interpreta- tions of the definition of illegal aliens. The need for a clear and concise understanding of the parameters of the illegal alien population is especially crucial in a border county where there is also a considerable legal Hispanic population and where there may also be a "permanent" illegal alien popula- tion. Also, cases cited do not reflect the impact of illegal aliens on entire county social systems in many cases, but rather relate to the estimated impact on one particular school or hospital. Even if based on sound estimates the San Diego study is specific only for an area with a major influx of illegal Mexican aliens and an influx of very few non-Mexican aliens. It is impossible to generalize this unique border experience - 131 - to any other area, especially to the illegal alien population at large. With the above qualifications and problems in mind, we in no way intend to endorse these studies but instead have found them to provide a reasonable basis for certain tentative judgments. INS is currently conducting a Residential Survey as a key component of a research program on illegal immigration. The survey is the first attempt to collect data on the number, characteristics, and impacts of illegal immigrants on a national scale. 23 / The results will be very helpful to increased understanding of impact questions. B. DEFINITIONS "Entry without Inspection" (EWI) will be used to designate persons who enter surreptitiously. "Visa abuser" will be used to designate all individuals who enter with a legal docu- ment but then violate the terms of that document, or anyone else who uses fraudulent means to gain entry to the United States. "Western Hemisphere" (WH) refers to independent countries of North, Central and South America as well as those of the Caribbean. "Eastern Hemisphere" (EH) refers to any independent country not included under Western Hemisphere. Colonies and 23 / The Survey is to be conducted in the twelve most populous states: California, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, New Jersey, Florida, Massachusetts, Indiana, and North Carolina. - 132 - dependencies are counted as part of the country with which they have that relationship. The terms illegal alien and undocumented worker are used interchangeably. C. PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS A review of data relating to personal characteristics can be extremely useful in assessing the impact of the presence of the illegal alien. For example, if the population is young, we can predict that the group will not place heavy demands on services for the aged in the near future. If the population is predominantly male, we can expect that demands on hospital maternity facilities would be small. Nationality There is little data available on the national origin of the illegal alien population. The most comprehensive data is the numbers of deportable aliens apprehended by the INS. Ninety percent of apprehended illegals are Mexican citizens. The non-Mexican apprehended groups breaks down as follows: É Percentage Number Canada 12% 9,362 British West Indies & Belize 7% 5,512 Greece 6% 4,619 China 5% 4,204 Dominican Republic 5% 3,601 Philippines 4% 2,804 United Kingdom 3% 2,334 Others 59% 45,750* *Only countries with over three percent representation in this population have been included. Because of rounding, percentages add up to 101%. (INS, 1975) - 133 - While it is reasonable to assume that Mexican nationals form the largest element within the illegal alien population, it is probable that they constitute far less than ninety percent. Several researchers have suggested that the true percentage is closer to sixty percent, but this estimate appears to be no better than an educated guess. (North, 1976) As previously mentioned, the apprehension rate is biased by the emphasis of the INS enforcement activity. It is also biased by the ease in identification of many Mexicans on the basis of racial characteristics. Another aspect of enforcement efforts which may further skew the figures is that the INS spends relatively little effort in attempting to locate visa abusers. If we are to believe the findings of certain studies, fewer Mexicans are in the visa abuser category. (North, 1976) 24/ A recent study done under contract for INS concerning fraudulent use of immigration documents has some nationality data. Inspections of documents for the study were made on a random sample of applicants for admission at 10 major inter- national airports and the 12 largest ports of entry on our Southern land border. Nationality breakdowns are not avail- able for the land port group. Of those malafide entries Here and elsewhere the term "visa abuser" excludes Mexican citizens who, under pretext of shopping on the U.S. side, are actually employed. No data are available on the size of this group, but it may be substantial. - 134 - through airports, 57% came from countries bordering the Caribbean excluding Mexico; 14% came from Mexico, 17% came from Europe; and 5% came from South America. (Fraud. Entrants, 1976) Origin Within Country of Citizenship Information has been discovered relating to the regional origin of some illegal aliens within their country of citizen- ship. Unfortunately, such data are limited to Mexico. This information will be useful in selecting sites for further research on "push" factors. It may also be useful in consider- ing new techniques for the identification of illegals in enforcement activities. Forty-six years ago, Manuel Gamio identified the states of Michoacan, Guanajuato and Jalisco as the primary sending areas of Mexico for both legal and illegal immigrants. (Gamio, 1930) Studies done during the last few years have come to essentially the same conclusion. A study based on the analysis of apprehension forms for the Chula Vista sector (California) identified two of the states mentioned by Gamio as the source of forty-eight percent of the aliens apprehended (Jalisco and Michoacan). (Dagodag, 1975) A second study conducted by the Mexican Government along the length of the border revealed that fifty-seven percent of those who had been apprehended - 135 - were from six states. Three of the states were the same as those cited by Gamio. The others were Chihuahua, Baja, California and San Luis Potosi (Mexico, 1972). The 1968 Border Study Project directed by Julian Samora cited Gamio's three states and added Chihuahua and Durango as the source of more than fifty percent of the migration. (Samora, 1971) While the findings of these four studies are not absolutely consistent in that they rank the states differently, the degree of similarity of their findings over a forty-six year period is remarkable. Perhaps even more valuable than data on state origin, is the data gathered by the Mexican Government on the origin by "municipio". There there are 2,338 "municipios" in Mexico, more than fifty percent of the persons interviewed were from 82 "municipios". Several studies have also pointed out that the areas from which many illegal aliens come are precisely those areas which provided the bulk of the "braceros" during the life of that program (1942-1964). One researcher has suggested that the "bracero" program in a sense never stopped, but merely went underground. (Cornelius, 1976) Age The available studies indicate that the group is pre- dominantly a young one and consequently is very active in - 136 - the labor market. If the average age is indeed less than thirty, the group will probably continue to be active for more than thirty years (provided, of course, that these individuals remain in the United States). The only study which deals with the age of illegal aliens across the board sets the average at 28.5 years. (North, 1976) The average age of illegals who seek to enter the U.S. at Southern land ports with documents that are fraudulent or with the intent to violate terms of the visa is 27 to 28 years. Those entering through international airports have an average age of 30. (Fraud. Entrants, 1976) Other studies dealing only with the Mexican illegal come to similar conclusions. Some of these are: "mean age", 29, (Dagodag, 1975) ; 61.4% between the ages of 18 and 29, (Mexico, 1972) ; predominantly 17-29, (Cornelius, 1976) ; more than 70% under 30, (Samora, 1971). 25/ Sex The percentage of males VS. females in the illegal alien population may affect the impact that the group has on the labor market. It may also indicate the present and future impact on social institutions such as schools and health care 25 / If the probability of being apprehended decreases the longer one has been in the U.S., older illegal aliens are underrepresented in arrest data. - 137 - facilities. Several studies and anecdotal data indicate that the illegal alien population is overwhelmingly male (about 90%) However, these data are based on apprehended illegal aliens and are therefore suspect. INS maintains no overnight deten- tion facilities for women and consequently concentrates its efforts on the apprehension of males (except for individuals apprehended or turned back in the border zone). Fraudulent Entrants Study found that for the malafide applicants denied entry at the studied land ports, 55 percent were women. At the airports studied, 45 percent of the mala- fide applicants denied entry were women. These data are based upon a random sample. They challenge the 90 percent male estimate at least for those who do not enter surreptitiously between ports of entry. Based on his interview sample, North at first appears to accept the nine to one ratio. However, he concludes that the ratio is probably not accurate. He points out that in a study he did in 1975 for the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, 40 percent of the unapprehended illegal aliens identified were women. Of the 51 unapprehended illegal aliens he interviewed in the 1976 study, 41 percent were female. Of the 344 married apprehended aliens he interviewed in the 1976 study, 135 said that they had a spouse in the United States. While no data - 138 - are available to indicate whether the spouse is also here illegally, a substantial percentage are likely to be illegals. 26/ Educational Level The educational level of the illegal alien is a parti- cularly important area of consideration in evaluating the impact of this population on the labor market. It can be assumed that the nature of employment and wages which the illegal alien obtains in the U.S. will bear some relationship to his or her educational level. However, the North study indicates that many illegal alien white-collar workers are employed in blue collar positions in the U.S. (North, 1976) 27 / The average number of years of formal education found by North, among apprehended illegal aliens, was 6.7 years. However, for the Eastern Hemisphere, the average number of years was 11.9 (about the U.S. average). The average for Mexican nationals was 4.9 years. Other studies have also indicated 26 / Regarding the North Study, it is imperative to keep in mind that their sample of apprehended illegal aliens was not random. A criterion for selection in that study was that all persons interviewed had to have worked for at least two weeks in the United States prior to apprehension. Because this sample group was apprehended illegal aliens, most of the members were men. 27 / Occupations may require different skills in different countries. A white collar clerk in Mexico may find that a lack of fluency in English limits him to blue collar work in the U.S. Or skills sufficient in country of origin may not be sufficient in the U.S. - 139 - a very low average for Mexican illegal alien workers. (North, 1976; Samora, 1971; Mexico, 1972) Since the educational level of many illegal aliens appears to be low, these individuals would probably find employment in unskilled jobs. The social impact of their presence would be similar to that of other workers in such jobs. Marital Status The marital status of the undocumented worker population could be an important indication of potential for social impact by suggesting permanence (if the illegal alien is married and brings spouse) ; disruption of family (if married and does not bring spouse) ; potential for regularization of status (if the individual is seeking a spouse) and the possi- bility of changing from an illegal status to a legal status (if the individual marries a citizen even though the original intention was not to stay permanently). The one study which deals with this subject for the illegal alien population as a whole, indicated that thirty-six percent of the twenty-five to thirty-four age group was single. (North, 1976) The Fraudulent Entrants study developed marital status information only on the individuals who entered through inter- national airports. A majority of both sexes (58.9% and 56.6% of women) were single. - 140 - Studies relating to Mexican undocumented workers of all ages also indicated high percentages: 52 percent single (of the entire group of 2,794), usually single (group of 75), 62.3 percent single (group of 1,539) and 46 percent single (group of 493). (Mexico, 1972; Cornelius, 1976; Dagodag, 1975; Samora, 1971) In addition to the importance of marital status as an indicator of permanence, this factor will also affect the way the individual impacts on the community. Language Ability English language ability directly affects how an illegal alien will interact with the community. It is thought to be a major determinant of the kind of employment he or she can expect and also may influence his or her decisions as to where to live. The one study which provided information on language ability for the overall group indicated that sixty-four percent did not speak English. Among Western Hemisphere illegals the percentage was nearly seventy percent. (North, 1976) For the Mexican group, two studies provided some informa- tion. Both reported that ninety percent of the group did not speak English. (North, 1976; Samora, 1971) One study also found that illegal aliens with a good command of English were likely to have: (1) better jobs, - 141 - (2) less problem in avoiding INS, and (3) were likely to live outside ethnic communities. (North, 1976) Motivation An individual who decides to emigrate illegally to the U.S. may do so for a single reason or for several. However, the primary reason for the decision of the majority of illegals appears to be economic. This is attested to by INS data, e.g., number of apprehended illegals employed and number of illegals apprehended while seeking jobs. It is also supported by anec- dotal accounts. Additional supporting evidence for this belief can be obtained by comparing economic conditions in major sending countries with those in the U.S. (push-pull factors). While employment opportunities for illegal aliens in the U.S. may be poor by American standards, they are con- siderably better than those in the country of origin. Data obtained by North in his interviews of 793 appre- hended illegals strongly supports this belief. Seventy-four percent of those interviewed gave employment opportunities as the reason for emigration. When the responses were broken down by region of origin, however, some very interesting con- trasts became apparent. Only twenty-three percent of Eastern Hemisphere respondents said that they had entered to find a job. Sixty percent of non-Mexican Western Hemisphere respondents also gave this as a primary motive. In contrast, eighty-nine -- 142 - percent of the Mexican illegal aliens interviewed by North gave employment as the reason for emigration. The other responses for non-Mexican illegals interviewed by North were as follows: 17% to study, 15% to see the U.S., 6.5% to see relatives and 10% gave other reasons. (North, 1976) Studies limited to Mexican illegals strongly emphasize the economic nature of the motivation to emigrate. (North, 1976; Cornelius, 1976; Mexico, 1972; Samora, 1971) One study suggested two additional reasons for emigration. These were: a desire to escape parental authority and temporary emigration to the U.S. as a local tradition. (Cornelius, 1976) D. CHARACTERISTICS OF ENTRY The breakdown by area of origin (Eastern Hemisphere V. Western Hemisphere) confirms what we could logically expect. Most illegals from the Eastern Hemisphere fall into the visa abuser category, while Western Hemisphere illegals from Mexico and Canada usually enter without inspection. Other Western Hemisphere illegal aliens are more likely to be visa abusers. Sixty-one percent of all illegals are apprehended within seventy-two hours of entry. Most of these persons are Mexican EWI's caught at the border or in the border zone. (INS, 1975) Entry Without Inspection (EWI) Eighty-eight percent of the illegal aliens apprehended by INS are in this category. However, the pattern changes - 143 - dramatically when the origin of the undocumented worker is taken into consideration. For example, very few Eastern Hemisphere apprehended illegals are EWI's (2.4%). On the other hand, twenty percent of Western Hemisphere illegals are in this category if Mexico and Canada are excluded. Forty percent of the Canadians are EWI's and ninety-six percent of Mexicans are in this category. (INS, 1975) A large percentage of illegals entering from Mexico appear to be aided by smugglers. For a price, the smuggler indicates when, where, and how a group should attempt to cross. They are then met by a truck on the U.S. side. Transportation can be arranged as far north as Chicago and services frequently include some sort of forged document. It appears to cost somewhere between $200 to $300 depending on the services rendered. (Cornelius, 1976; Dagodag, 1975; Samora, 1971) Visa Abusers and Malafide Entrants A visa abuser enters on a legal visa, but then overstays or violates the conditions of his/her visa. Individuals in this group are overwhelmingly non-Mexican. Visa abusers are apprehended less frequently because of the nature of INS enforcement efforts. The category represents about twelve percent of the illegals apprehended. 28 / 28 / However, it should be noted that INS records indicate that Mexican unresolved departures total almost 400,000 since 1974. This data represents those holding documents. - 144 - A subcategory of visa abusers is malafide entrants. This includes those attempting entry with counterfeit or altered documents, as imposters, by false verbal or documented claims to U.S. citizenship, or with valid documents, the terms of which the bearer had or intends to violate, usually to work. It is estimated that in 1975 there were 12 to 14 times as many successful malafide entries as there were entries denied. These statistics relate to entries, not entrants and are therefore not an estimate of population as one individual may enter several times. However, these data mean that over 500,000 (ratio of 9:1 land port to airport) fraudulent entries were made. This figure is exclusive of sea or Northern border arrivals, those with bona fide intentions upon arrival who subsequently violate terms of admission, and those entering surreptitiously between ports. (Fraud. Entrants, 1976) Others Another group mentioned previously is those Mexican citizens who live close to the border and commute daily to jobs in U.S. border towns under the pretext of shopping in U.S. stores. No data exists as to the number of persons in this category but the group may be sizeable. 29 / 29 / One group related to this phenomenon, however, is known. Those holding cards that convey "commuter" privileges number approximately 45,000 on the Southern Border. - 145 - E. CHARACTERISTICS OF RESIDENCE Where and how illegal aliens live in this country is of concern in that it directly affects their impact on communities. Unfortunately, the available information is limited and is of poor quality. Location Hard data on the location of illegal aliens within this country are limited to apprehension figures. These, to a considerable degree, are a function of the nature of enforce- ment activity of the INS. At best they provide an extremely rough indication of where the illegals are. Apprehension data do, however, show that a change has taken place in the distri- bution of undocumented workers. Illegals are now apprehended in every state and in virtually every town. Substantial numbers of Mexican illegals have moved successively northward away from the border even though the largest concentrations are probably still in the Southwest. According to one researcher, the largest single element in the illegal alien population on the East Coast is from the island of Hispaniola (Haiti and the Dominican Republic). Another researcher divides the population into three elements: (1) Mexican--residing mainly in California and the Southwest, (2) other Western Hemisphere--mainly East Coast, and (3) Eastern Hemisphere--predominantly East Coast. (Piore, 1974; North, 1976) - 146 - One 1972 study, based on interviews with 2,794 Mexican illegal aliens departing voluntarily, indicated that appre- hension took place in the following states: Texas - 44% California - 25% Arizona - 10% New Mexico - 8% Illinois - 3.3% Residence With Other Illegal Aliens North indicates that illegals are likely to reside with other illegals. This was especially true with Mexican illegals (53.9%) and also with those that spoke little English. (North, 1976) Residence in Areas With High Percentages of Resident Aliens and Citizens of Similar Ethnic Background Beyond the North data, little or no evidence has been found to indicate that illegal aliens are concentrated nationally in areas with high percentages of resident aliens and citizens of similar ethnic background. Bustamante and others have described the tension existing between illegals and citizens of the same ethnic background. Cornelius mentions that those illegals with relatives in the U.S. may live with them but that this is probably not the majority. Perhaps the best indication that there is some - 147 - validity to this assumption is INS's success in making appre- hensions in these areas. (Bustamante, 1976; Cornelius, 1976; North, 1976) Mobility Data of several types are available from different researchers which indicate that the illegal alien is highly mobile and frequently returns to his/her country of citizen- ship. This can be interpreted as proof of the continuing strength of his/her ties to his/her native country. One researcher reported that apprehended illegals returned to their country of origin an average of 2.1 times during a five year period. Apparently, Mexican nationals have a much higher return rate than non-Mexicans. Mexican illegals returned home on the average of 4.5 times during the last five years. Another study indicated that the average length of stay in the U.S. for Mexican undocumented workers was six to eight months. (North, 1976; Cornelius, 1976) Wage Remissions Frequent remission of part of a worker's earnings to a relative in the country of origin is another indication often cited as proof of the strength of ties with the country of citizenship. One study dealing with illegal aliens of all - 148 - nationalities indicated that seventy-five percent of the apprehended illegals interviewed stated that part of their wages were sent home to help support a relative. (North, 1976) Other studies of Mexican nationals indicated a high wage remission rate. A 1972 study of voluntary departues indicated that 52% sent wages home by mail. Another study tended to confirm this. (Mexico, 1972; Cornelius, 1976) F. CHARACTERISTICS OF WORK PLACE Exploitation For obvious reasons illegals are vulnerable to exploita- tion by unscrupulous employers. They can hardly afford to report substandard work-related housing or dangerous working conditions to OSHA nor could they report minimum wage viola- tions even though they are theoretically protected. Numerous horror stories circulate regarding employers who report illegal aliens to INS in order to avoid paying wages. While there can be no doubt that these circumstances do occur, it is difficult to say how widespread the pattern is. One study based on interviews with illegal aliens of different nationalities, reported that twenty-three percent of the workers were paid at less than the minimum wage. The same study reported that eighteen percent of the workers interviewed felt that they had been hired because they were illegal aliens. (North, 1976) - 149 - The study done by the Mexican Government in 1972 revealed that although eighty percent of those interviewed stated that they were willing to go back to the U.S., sixty- seven percent reported they were not paid regularly and/or were still owed wages when apprehended. (Mexico, 1972) Availability of Jobs Many of the illegals apprehended by INS are discovered at their place of work. While no clear indication of the success rate of undocumented workers in finding employment is available, some information is available for the Mexican group. Some studies indicate that a number of illegal aliens have considerable difficulty in finding jobs. One study reported that finding a job presented far more difficulty for the illegal alien than eluding the INS. A second study indicated that only forty-seven percent of the voluntary departures interviewed were able to find a job. An earlier study indi- cated that most illegals are unsuccessful in locating a job. (Cornelius, 1976; Mexico, 1972; Samora, 1971) 30/ G. USE OF SERVICES It has frequently been alleged that illegal aliens produce a substantial drain on public services such as welfare, food stamps, hospital care, public education, etc. 30/ Again, this information may be biased by the groups we are dealing with in the samples. - 150 - Several of the studies which base their conclusions on hard data contradict this assertion. For example, a study done in San Diego County indicates that of 9,132 welfare cases, only ten were known to be illegal aliens. The same study reports that in Los Angeles, of 1,400 cases, only fifty-six were found to be illegal aliens. In San Diego, indications were also found that the problem of illegal aliens partici- pating in public education, hospital services and food stamps was minimal. (San Diego, 1975) Additional information on this topic was obtained from an HEW document which reported error of less than .7 percent in the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program due to citizenship-alienage problems. (HEW, 1975) The North study also indicated that the problems of use of public services by illegal aliens was minimal. However, it is likely that the North study understates the problem since all persons interviewed worked for at least two weeks in the U.S. prior to apprehension. Of the persons interviewed by North, only .5% had received welfare, 1.5% had received food stamps, 4% had collected unemployment and 27% had used hospitals and clinics. Of the 27% who had used hospitals and clinics, 83% reported that they had paid for the care themselves, or that it was paid for by the employer or by a health insurance plan. In consequence, only 4.6% of North's interview population had received free health care. (North, 1976) - 151 - Another study dealing with Mexican illegals indicated that only three out of thirty persons interviewed received unemployment benefits. None of the persons had ever received food stamps, welfare or medical benefits. (Cornelius, 1976) H. CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE TAX BASE Obviously, illegal aliens pay sales tax and consequently contribute to the tax base. In addition, there are indications that many illegal aliens may pay income tax. The same is true of Social Security taxes. According to North, seventy-three percent of all illegals he interviewed had income tax with- holding deducted from their salaries and seventy-seven percent had Social Security deductions taken out. Perhaps more sur- prising was the fact that thirty-two percent had actually filed tax returns. However, it has been pointed out that some illegals claim more than an appropriate number of deductions for dependents. No indication has yet been found of how widespread this practice is. (North, 1976) Somewhat contradictory information was developed during a 90-day test conducted by IRS on apprehended illegal aliens in INS detention centers. Of the 1,699 illegals interviewed, 1,090 had outstanding income tax liabilities. The total amount owed in that test was $247,696, an average per subject of about $140. As a result of this high frequency of - 152 - non-compliance, (of modest average amounts), the IRS is currently studying compliance among employers known to hire illegal aliens. The results of this review are as yet unavailable. (See pages 102-104). I. SUMMARY Based on the above discussion, we must conclude that research on illegal aliens is very much in its infancy. In spite of the limitations and deficiencies, certain guides to future research are evident. Although this chapter has not attempted to discuss stage (s) of settlement, this aspect of migration may bear a major relationship to the impact brought about by illegal migration. Because of our lack of knowledge we have not used the soft portrait to predict which stage (s) we may be experiencing. A discussion of settlement stage (s) appears in Chapter VI of the report. In instances where there is considerable agreement among researchers, those points of agreement can be used to formulate hypotheses. Some of the hypotheses emerging from this review are: 1. The principal impact of the presence of illegal aliens at this time is likely to be on the labor market rather than on social services. The nature of the impact may be dependent upon the stage of settlement of various groups of illegals. In the early stages, the illegals tend to be young, single and male. In the latter stages, they tend to have families and remain permanently. - 153 - 2. A significant percentage of the earnings of illegal aliens is remitted to the country of origin. 3. Mexican migration may be very different from that originating in other countries by method of entry, motivation, frequency of return, education and language ability, and male- female configuration. - 154 - CHAPTER V - DOMESTIC IMPACT OF ILLEGAL ALIENS In addition to the international forces which establish migrations of people, the domestic impact of illegal aliens must be analyzed. As we have noted in Chapter IV, research on illegal aliens is still in an embryonic state, making an exposition of impacts not only difficult but tentative. Nevertheless, some basic outlines of the socio-economic dimensions of this issue can be developed from available research, comparison groups and standard social and economic theory. Recognizing that (a) the heart of any dramatic policy shifts is likely to be a function of domestic impact and that (b) domestic impact is a vast area of inquiry, the task forces have developed only select themes consistent with the pre- liminary nature of this project. Presumably, as better infor- mation and greater awareness develops, our view of the illegal alien issue will be increasingly influenced by measures of their impact. The Issues of Employment and Earnings This section presents hypotheses as to the impact of illegal aliens on the labor market and the income of others, a comparison of the demographic and occupational distribution of the illegals with those of legal immigrants, a discussion of the earnings of immigrants and a discussion of guest worker programs in the United States and Europe. - 155 - A. HYPOTHESES Much of the concern with regard to illegal aliens focuses on their impact on the labor market, and the resulting effects on the economy as a whole. One concern has to do with the effect on the economy's total output, Gross National Product (GNP). The other is with the impact on the distribution of real income, that is, on relative wages, profits and prices. GNP and Relative Incomes Economic theory does suggest hypotheses as to the impact of the presence of, or an increase in the number of, illegal aliens. The total real output (GNP) produced by the economy increases in response to the greater employment supply due to immigration, whether legal or illegal. Even the total real income of those already residing in 31/ the United States increases. However, the gain in real income is not shared uniformly. As relative wages for illegal aliens decline in response to an increase in their labor supply, the owners of firms employing illegal aliens and the consumers of the goods pro- duced by illegal aliens tend to gain through higher profits and lower prices, respectively. On the other hand, the relative 31/ This follows from the standard assumption of a declining marginal product of labor. The marginal product of labor declines if the extra output from an extra million workers decreases as the size of the labor force increases, other factors held constant. - 156 - wages of legal resident workers who are close substitutes in employment for the illegal aliens also decline. They suffer a loss in earnings that is not likely to be fully compensated by the decline in the prices of goods and services that illegal aliens produce or by increases in the return on their nonlabor assets. In short, many residents may gain a little at the much greater expense of a few. Historically, public policy has attempted to protect the interests of those upon whom such burdens fall and this analysis is not intended to suggest departures from this principle. As will be shown below, apprehended illegal aliens tend to be low skilled. And during the first few years in the United States, immigrants in general tend to be less productive than native born persons of a similar age and schooling, as the immigrants are not familiar with the language, skills and customs relevant to U.S. labor markets. If the illegal aliens are in fact low skilled, then low skilled legal resident workers are likely to be close substitutes for them in employment. Consequently, the increase in the relative supply of unskilled workers brought about by the presence of illegal aliens would tend to depress the real and money wages of unskilled workers. - 157 - But this same presence implies a decline in the proportion of skilled workers in the labor force, and the relative wages of skilled workers to unskilled workers will therefore tend to increase. The lower real wages for all low skilled workers as a result of the illegal immigration of low skill workers could appear as either a slower growth in money wages or a deterioration in working conditions. The latter effect is more likely if there is a floor under money wages, for example, because of minimum wage legislation. Workers can be expected to respond to a deterioration in working conditions in a manner similar to their response to lower money wages. The relative decline in wages in the occupations that are intensive in lower skilled illegal alien labor would encourage legal resident workers to leave these sectors, and this occupational change is sometimes referred to as the displacement effect. Some of these workers would go to other lower skilled jobs and tend to depress wages there. Others, however, would acquire training to qualify for higher skilled jobs, as the financial return to training has increased. While still others (particularly the aged and married women with young children) would tend to drop out of the labor force. - 158 - The decline in the earnings and employment of low skilled workers would result in an increase in transfer payments. Experienced workers who become unemployed would qualify for unemployment compensation benefits. Some older workers would apply for social security. Low income families would qualify for Food Stamps, and possibly AFDC, among other programs. In the past there has been much concern with the outflow of dollars from the United States. This arose because during a period in which the Government was attempting to defend fixed exchange rates, an increase in the short-term net outflow of dollars could have serious balance of payments difficulties, and result in substantial manipulation of the domestic economy. In the current era of flexible exchange rates, however, such problems 32/ disappear in the long run. There is also a concern among some that the "leakage" of U.S. dollars due to immigrant remittances has an adverse effect on U.S. employment and output. This is not the case as ultimately other countries use these U.S. dollars to buy U.S. goods and services. As far as domestic output and employment are concerned, it does not matter whether a U.S. resident spends $100 in the United States or a foreigner who received this money from a U.S. resident spends $100 for U.S. export. 32/ The impact of the short run adjustment process is ambiguous. - 159 - Unemployment and Job Vacancies There is substantial concern that illegal aliens reduce the number of jobs available for legal workers, and thereby create unemployment for legal workers. Some even imply that this occurs on a one-for-one basis. This view, however, is based on the assumption that there are a fixed number of jobs in the economy, and giving one person a job implies denying it to another. As long as relative wages can respond to changing relative supplies of different types of labor, an increase in the size of the illegal alien population per se will not increase unemployment in the long run. There may, however, be some short-run impact as legal residents may have to engage in a somewhat longer job search process until they adjust to the new situation. The unemployment impact is heightened when there is a floor under wages and working conditions. If illegals work at levels that just meet or violate Fair Labor Standards Act or Occupational Safety and Health Act provisions, but natives will not, employers would hire at least some illegals at legal residents' expense. Furthermore, the violation of such standards undermines the effectiveness of those protections for native workers. The low skilled legal residents whose productivity rests at the minimum - 160 - employment cost (the minimum wage plus the cost of legally mandated fringe benefits and working conditions) would have difficulty finding employment. They would experience greater unemployment as they search for a job opening. This adverse employment effect is likely to be most severe for legal residents who are teenagers, disabled, or clearly unskilled -- those who have the lowest productivity. Some unemployment from this source is not transitional, and can persist for a long time especially if the legal minimum employment cost rises at least as fast as average wages in the economy. The argument is sometimes advanced that illegal aliens do the jobs that all legal resident workers find so distasteful that these jobs would not be filled if there were no illegal aliens. In this view, illegal aliens are not substitutes in employment for legal workers because the latter would not accept the jobs the illegals fill. To attract legal workers to such jobs money wages and working conditions would have to be increased by so much that firms that now rely on illegal workers would go out of business or substantially change their condi- tions of employment through a substitution of capital 33/ The benefits received from income transfer programs may be sufficient to discourage legal workers from taking jobs that offer low wages and undesirable working conditions. - 161 - for labor. The curtailment of the use of illegal alien labor may then have little effect on legal worker employ- ment, but would raise costs to these firms and raise the relative prices of the items they produce. This view rests on the two assumptions that it would take a very large increase in real wages to induce legal workers to these jobs (inelastic labor supply) and that the demand for these products declines sharply in response to price increases (elastic demand for the item). The argument was most forcefully raised in discussions of the Bracero program, but as will be indicated below, these fears were not well founded. Thus far there is no evidence that these conditions apply to sectors employing illegal aliens. However, more information is needed about the illegal alien labor market before this controversy can be fully resolved. Taxes and Social Services The gain to the resident population from addi- tional immigration (legal or illegal) is reduced to the extent that the taxes paid by immigrants (or in their behalf by their employers) are less than the sum of the extra cost to society of providing them with social services and the extra burden they place on the criminal justice system. The taxes include income, payroll, property, sales and excise taxes. Even if illegal aliens do not directly - 162 - pay property taxes, and if many evade income taxes, a smaller proportion could evade paying social security taxes (see Chapter IV). Social security taxes are the major source of Federal tax revenue from low-income families. 34/ Social services include subsidized hospital care, schooling for children, and welfare benefits. To the extent that illegal aliens are predominantly adult but not ared men, and to the extent that they seek to avoid contact with government authorities, their use of social services would be minimal and the extra cost to the taxpayers as a whole would be small. Chapter IV suggests on the basis of the research performed to date that their use of social services would seem to be minimal at this time. However, if low income alien workers bring their families to the U.S., their use of social services may exceed their contribution to that form of taxes. Additional Hypotheses A particular level of net migration may be observed because there is a large turnover in the immigration popu- lation, that is, many migrants return to their country of origin after working in the United States for a short period of time. The same net migration can also be observed because of a gross inflow and little or no return migration. The latter implies a longer average tenure in the United States of illegal aliens. Since it is shown below that 34/ In 1976, the combined employer and employee Social Security tax is 11.7 percent of the first $15,300 of a worker's earnings. - 163 - tenure in the United States is an important determinant of the productivity and earnings of migrants, these different determinants of a given level of net migration have different implications for the impact of illegal aliens. At this time, however, there is too little data to estimate the magnitude of the net and gross flows, or the average tenure in the United States of illegal aliens. Finally, a complete model of immigration should treat net and gross flows of immigrants as endogenous. Migrants tend to respond to employment opportunities in the United States, and in their country of origin. If illegal aliens are responsive to employment opportunities, their net migration rate would be lower during a recession in the United States. Then, they may contribute little to the growth in unemployment during a recession. Although the gross and net effects of these factors need to be quantified to test these hypotheses and to estimate the economic impact of illegal aliens, the scanty data currently available cannot provide definitive answers. At most they can indicate the direction of some of the effects. - 164 - B. DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF LEGAL AND ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS If legal and illegal aliens are comparable demographically, information on the former may provide for postulating about the latter. The basic source of information on the characteristics of foreign born residents of the United States is the 1970 Census of Population. These data indicate that of the 9.6 million foreign born residing in the United States, 4.4 million (46 percent) are males. Of these males ages 16 to 64, 88 percent were in the labor force in March 1970. Similarly, among foreign born women age 16 to 64, 47 percent were in the labor force. The respective unemployment rates in March 1970 for the foreign born were 3.8 percent for males and 6.0 percent for females, compared to 3.9 percent and 5.2 percent respectively for the entire (native and foreign) population. By way of comparison, the studies primarily of apprehended illegal aliens cited in the Soft Portrait in Chapter IV suggest 35 that the illegal alien population is predominantly male. This proportion would probably be higher if the data were limited to illegal aliens who expect to stay permanently, but it would still be a predominantly male population. 35/ The proportion of women among apprehended illegals may be less than among all illegal aliens because of INS apprehension policies. - 165 - There is evidence that apprehended illegal aliens have a high unemployment rate but are actively seeking work and thus show a very high labor force participation rate. Based on a small sample, North and Houstoun estimated that the 36 / unemployment rate from 1970-1975 averaged 10.2 percent. This study, as well as other studies on illegals, indicates that the labor force participation rate is close to 100 per- cent, that is nearly all are employed or actively seeking employment. It appears that illegal aliens are a working population rather than one that is largely unemployed or out of the labor force. These data imply that the unemployment rates and the labor force participation rates of illegals exceed those of the foreign born residents as reported in the Census. It is not known, however, to what extent illegal aliens make them- selves particularly vulnerable to being arrested when they are without a job and are looking for work. Also, adjustments to U.S. labor markets take time, and the apprehended illegals tend to be relatively recent arrivals. It is not known to what extent the unemployment rate of illegal aliens and the 36/ David North and Marian Houstoun, "The Characteristics and Role of the Illegals in the U.S. Labor Market," Linton and Co. Inc., Washington, D.C., 1976. Their sample was limited to 793 non-randomly selected illegal aliens who had worked for at least two weeks prior to apprehension. Thus, labor force participation would be expected to be high. The sample consisted largely of apprehensions, although some had not been apprehended. - 166 - probability of being apprehended decline with tenure in the United States. Given the age and sex distribution of the illegal alien population (see Chapter IV) and fears of potential deportation if they are detected by the authorities, their high labor force participation rate is not surprising. Table 1 compares the occupational distribution of the male illegal aliens in the North-Houstoun study with that of foreign born males (whose occupational distribution is similar to that of all U.S. males). The table indicates substantial occupational disparity between North-Houstoun's illegal aliens and the foreign born residents. While nearly 80 per- cent of the illegal population were employed in the generally unskilled categories of nonfarm laborer, operative, service worker, and farm worker, about 40 percent of the foreign born males were similarly employed. The illegal aliens in the North-Houstoun study are underrepresented in the professional and managerial occupations (2.9 percent compared to 27.2 percent). The occupational differences are somewhat smaller in a comparison between the illegal aliens, who tend to be of relatively short duration in the United States, and foreign 37 / born men who migrated between 1965 and 1970. 37 / The apprehended illegal aliens are likely to be more recent arrivals because (a) apprehended illegals are either deported or made legal and the probability of having been apprehended sometime would increase with tenure in the United States, (b) the probability of being apprehended in a year may decline the longer one has been in the United States, and (c) illegal aliens may be more likely to have viewed migration to the United States as temporary. - 167 - Table 1. Occupational Distribution of Employed Foreign Born Males Aged 16+ and Apprehended Illegal Aliens (%) All Foreign Born Males Foreign Who Entered Apprehended Born Males 1965-1970 Illegal Aliens Occupation (1970) (1970) (1975) White Collar Workers 39.6 37.7 5.4 Prof; Tech. & Kindred 16.9 22.4 1.6 Owners; Mgrs; and Admin. except Farm 10.3 5.3 1.3 Sales Workers 5.9 3.0 1.1 Clerical & Kindred Workers 6.5 7.0 1.4 Blue Collar Workers 45.1 45.8 55.2 Craft & Kindred Workers 21.3 17.5 15.3 Operatives 17.8 21.4 25.1 Nonfarm Laborers 6.0 6.9 14.8 Service Workers 12.1 13.6 20.6 Farm Workers 3.2 3.1 18.8 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Sample Size (1) (1) 628 Note: Detail may not add to total due to rounding. (1) Five percent sample of the U.S. population. Source: Columns 1 and 2: 1970 Census of Population, Subject Reports PC(2)-1A, National Origin and Language -- Table 18, p. 466. Column 3: David North and Marian Houstoun "The Characteristics and Role of Illegal Aliens in the U.S. Labor Market," Linton and Co., Inc., 1976 Table V-3. See Footnote 36 on p. 165. - 168 - Table 2 compares the occupational distribution of employed Mexican born male U.S. residents (all and those who migrated between 1965 and 1970) with that of the North- Houstoun sample of Mexican illegal aliens. The divergence in the occupational distributions between the foreign born and the North-Houstoun illegal aliens largely disappears 38/ when the data are limited to recent arrivals from Mexico. The four unskilled categories of nonfarm laborer, operative, service worker, and farm worker accounted for 84 percent of the Mexican illegals while 79 percent of the resident Mexicans that entered in 1965-70 were in these classifications. For professional and managerial occupations the proportions were 0.5 percent for the illegals and 3.1 percent for the recent migrants. These distributions are very similar. It must be noted, however, that the North-Houstoun sample is not a random sample of illegal aliens. It is not known to what extent their procedures would tend to bias their sample in favor of persons with low occupational levels, particularly farm workers. In addition, their sample size was very small. 38/ This is to be expected since the Mexicans were 65 percent of the sample of illegals and 10 percent of the foreign born men who arrived between 1965 and 1970, and immigrants from Mexico have an occupational distribution that differs from that of other immigrants. - 169 - Table 2. Occupational Distribution of Employed Males Born in Mexico and Apprehended Mexican Born Illegal Aliens (%) Apprehended Born Born in Mexico, Mexican in Entered U.S. Illegal Mexico 1965-1970 Aliens Occupation (1970) (1970) (1975) White Collar Workers 11.7 6.7 1.2 Prof; Tech & Kindred 3.2 2.1 0.5 Owners; Mgrs. and Admin. except Farm 3.0 1.0 I Sales Workers 2.3 1.0 0.7 Clerical & Kindred 3.2 2.6 -- Blue Collar Workers 61.2 63.2 54.8 Craft & Kindred Workers 18.8 13.8 14.3 Operatives 27.4 33.5 22.6 Nonfarm Laborers 15.0 15.7 17.9 Service Workers 11.5 13.4 16.9 Farm Workers 15.6 16.7 27.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Sample Size (1) (1) 407 Note: Detail may not add to total due to rounding. (1) Five percent sample of the U.S. population. Source: Columns 1 and 2: 1970 Census of Population, Subject Reports PC (2) -1A, National Origin and Language -- Table 18, p. 487. Column 3: David North and Marian Houstoun, "The Characteristics and Role of Illegal Aliens in the U.S. Labor Market," Linton and Co., Inc., 1976, Table V-5. See footnote 36 in p. 165. - 170 - In summary, from Chapter IV and this chapter it appears that apprehended illegal aliens differ demographically from the resident foreign born population. The apprehended illegals are more likely to be young adult males, in low skilled occupations, and unemployed. However, these differences narrow dramatically when the comparisons of illegal aliens with the foreign born are done separately for persons of Mexican and non-Mexican origin, and when the foreign born are recent immigrants. This suggests that use- ful insights about male illegal aliens may be obtained from analyses for the foreign born, if particular attention is given to the effects of country of origin and tenure in the United States. These conclusions must remain tentative and preliminary, however, until we obtain more and better data on the illegal population. C. THE IMPACT The impact of illegal aliens on the U.S. labor market is difficult to assess because there is little information on the number of illegal aliens in the United States, their earnings, schooling and job training, their knowledge of English, and their tenure in the United States. However, legal immigration may pose many of the same problems associated with illegal immigration. By combining an analysis of the earnings and economic ramifications of immigrants in general with what little is known about how illegal aliens differ - 171 - from legal immigrants, one can draw inferences about the earnings and labor market impact of illegal aliens. This section first considers the earnings of foreign born men, and the native born sons of the foreign born, to analyze the effects of tenure in the United States and country of origin and to see if they form a disadvantaged group. It then discusses some aspects of the impact on others through an examination of "guest worker" programs. 39/ Earnings of Immigrants Upon arrival illegal aliens may be at a greater earnings disadvantage than foreign born persons who are legal residents with similar skills and a similar tenure in the United States because the former will tend to avoid situations that could result in their illegal status being revealed to the authorities. This earnings disadvantage may include wage discrimination by employers who know or suspect that they are illegals. It is likely, however, that over time, illegal aliens learn how to mask their illegal status. This is suggested by the large proportion of recent arrivals among those apprehended by INS district office investigators. If so, the earnings disadvantage of illegal aliens relative to legal foreign born residents would diminish over time. Thus, 39/ The analysis of the earnings of the foreign born and foreign parentage is based on Barry R. Chiswick, "The Effect of Americanization of Earnings," mimeo, July 1976, and uses data from the 1970 Census of Population. - 172 - the earnings history of foreign born persons may provide useful insights into the likely experiences of illegal aliens. Although the native and foreign born white men had approximately the same annual earnings in 1969 (Table 3), they differed in several important characteristics associated with earnings. Foreign born men have a lower level of schooling, a mean of nearly 11 years compared to a mean of nearly 12 years for the native born. However, foreign born men are nearly three years older and are more likely to live in urban areas and outside the South. Although the average annual earnings of the foreign born are 1 percent lower than the native born, using regression analysis it is found that for persons of the same schooling, age, marital status, and place of residence, the foreign born have weekly earnings that are 3 percent higher than those of the native born. Among foreign born men the effect on earnings of an extra year of schooling and an extra year of labor market experience prior to immigration is lower than the effect of schooling and experience for the native born. This may arise because there are elements in the knowledge and skills acquired in school and in job related training (labor market experience) that are country specific. That is, knowledge and skills may have a large impact on earnings in the country in which they are acquired. - 173 - Table 3. Means of Earnings Related Characteristics of White Men Age 25 to 64 by Nativity Status, 1969 Variable All Men Native Born Foreign Born 1) Earnings ($) 9,734.09 9,738.13 9,662.01 2) Education (years) 11.84 11.90 10.83 3) Age 42.92 42.77 45.64 4) Weeks Worked 48.16 48.22 47.16 5) Percent Rural 29.39 30.39 11.49 6) Percent South 28.03 28.88 12.89 7) Percent Not "Married Spouse Present" 14.76 14.66 16.53 8) Percent Foreign Born 5.31 0.0 100.00 Number of observations (a) All -- 36,245 (b) Native Born -- 34,321 (c) Foreign Born -- 1,924 Source: 1970 Census of Population, 1/1,000 Sample, 5 percent questionnaire. - 174 - Earnings rise with tenure in the United States for the foreign born, presumably because after immigration they acquire knowledge and skills that are specific to the United States. Five years after immigration the foreign born have earnings 10 percent lower than the native born (other things the same), but earnings are approximately equal after 13 years, 6 percent higher after 20 years, and 13 percent higher after 30 years. For this effect to emerge, among persons of the same age, schooling and area of residence, the foreign born would have to have more innate ability, motivation or other earnings generating characteristics than the native born. If the distribution of ability were the same in the United States as elsewhere (schooling and age constant), this would suggest a selectivity bias in migration -- that is, a tendency for the migrants to be of disproportionately high ability or highly motivated people. There is an effect on earnings of the country of birth of foreign born white men. For the same schooling, age, etc. country of origin is generally not related to weekly earnings, with men from Mexico and Cuba being primary exceptions. Compared to the earnings of other foreign born men those from Mexico and Cuba have earnings that are lower by 33 percent and 24 percent, respectively. To determine the cause of the lower earnings for men born in Mexico, these persons can be compared with native born men - 175 - of Spanish surname living in the five southwestern states. Largely because they have less schooling and fewer weeks of work during the year, men born in Mexico had annual earnings that were 22 percent lower than the native born men of Spanish surname. However, for men of the same age, schooling and place of residence there was no difference in earnings. The earnings of men born in Mexico are sensitive to the number of years since migration to the United States. Although initially the earnings of Mexican-born men are substantially lower than for native born Spanish surname men, they rise rapidly with tenure in the United States and reach equality with that of native born Spanish surname men after 15 years, and are higher thereafter. The Mexican/Spanish surname analysis suggests that the earnings disadvantage of immigrants from Mexico compared to other immigrants reflects problems shared in common with native born Mexican-Americans. That is, it is an ethnic group, rather than an immigrant group, effect. The Cuban born are geographically concentrated (urban Florida) and are relatively recent migrants. At this time it is too early to determine whether their lower earnings arise from their being recent migrants and that this disadvantage will decrease over time, or whether it reflects longer term or permanent effects possibly arising from the different moti- vation for migration than other recent immigrants. - 176 - There do not appear to be adverse second generation effects. Men of foreign parentage have annual and weekly earnings about 12 percent higher than men with native born parents (Table 4). About one-half of this difference arises because second generation Americans are less likely to live in a rural area or in the South. The native parentage and foreign parentage have a similar level of schooling. Earnings are lower (by 2.0 to 4.5 percent) if a language other than or in addition to English was spoken in the home when the person was a child and it appears to matter which parent is foreign born. Compared to persons with both parents native born, those of foreign parentage have earnings that are 7 to 8 percent higher if only the father is foreign born, but there is not significant difference if only the mother or both parents are foreign born. Persons of Mexican parentage do have lower earnings, as is also true of Mexican-Americans whose parents were born in the United States. Again, this appears to reflect an ethnic group rather than an immigration group effect. In brief, these findings suggest that the earnings of white foreign born men are not substantially different from white native born men. Concerns that immigrants (or their descendants) form a long-term "underclass" appear to be unfounded. While immigrants from Mexico have lower earnings, this is also - 177 - Table 4. Means of Earnings Related Characteristics of Native Born White Men, Age 25 to 64, by Nativity of Parents, 1969 Both One or parents both parents native foreign Variable All born born 1) Earnings ($) 9,653.53 9,441.93 10,567.98 2) Education (years) 11.91 11.92 11.85 3) Age 42.72 41.71 47.08 4) Weeks Worked 48.27 48.27 48.28 5) Percent Rural 30.24 33.14 17.70 6) Percent South 29.24 33.60 10.37 ewo. 7) Percent not "Married II Spouse Present" 14.44 14.55 13.96 tb 8) Percent Father Foreign Born 16.24 N.A. 86.41 9) Percent Mother Foreign Born 13.91 N.A. 74.02 10) Percent Both Parents Foreign Born 11.36 N.A. 60.43 11) Percent One Parent Foreign Born 18.79 N.A. 100.00 12) Percent in which a Langauge other than English was Spoken in the Home 22.69 12.73 65.76 Number of observations (a) All -- 33,878 (b) Native Parentage -- 27,512 (c) Foreign Parentage -- 6,366 N.A. -- not applicable Source: 1970 Census of Population, 1/1,000 Sample, 15 percent questionnaire. - 178 - true of Spanish surname people whose ancestors have lived in the United States for many generations. The foreign born initially have less training and knowledge specific to U.S. labor markets, but this disadvantage appears to be overcome as time passes and, other things the same, the foreign born eventually have higher earnings than the native born. The implication is that, if left undetected, illegal aliens may experience a similar earnings history. Initially, however, their attempts to evade the authorities may result in somewhat lower earnings than legal foreign born residents. Apprehended illegal aliens tend to be disproportionately of Mexican origin and disproportionately recent arrivals and can therefore be expected to have lower earnings than the overall native born or foreign born population. Bracero Program The end of the Bracero Program in 1964 provided an excellent opportunity to gain insight into the effects of a reduction of immigration on the sectors that employ unskilled aliens. Officially sanctioned use of Mexican nationals in U.S. agriculture ran from 1941 to 1964 with statutory authori- zation granted in 1949 (Public Law 78). The use of braceros was restricted to areas where the Secretary of Labor certified that: (1) a shortage of bona fide domestic farm workers existed; (2) the employer had unsuccessfully sought to hire - 179 - native labor; and (3) the wages and work conditions of domestic agricultural workers would not be impaired. The peak period was 1955-59 with over 400,000 workers annually. Employed in 30 states, 79 percent worked in Texas and California with cotton as the major crop throughout the period. During the last years (1960-64) the numbers declined steadily. Demand for unskilled labor was sharply reduced by mechanization, larger farms and capital intensive crops in U.S. agriculture, as well as by stricter Department of Labor 40/ regulations governing the use of foreign nationals. A rise in farm wage rates in areas formerly using braceros was one major result of the end of the Bracero program. Nationally, the hourly wage rate for farm workers not receiving room and board increased 2.9 percent per year between 1955 and 1964. In 1965 it increased 5.6 percent, the largest annual increase since the Korean War. The sharp rise in wages in 1965 was a once-and-for-all effect as the supply of U.S. labor adjusted to the new circumstances. The decreased use of foreign farm workers expanded employment for U.S. workers by about 100,000 in 1965. At the August peak, 86,000 more Americans were employed as seasonal workers than one year earlier and unemployment for agricultural labor fell to 4.8 percent from the 6.5 percent in the previous year. This sharp decline in unemployment was temporary, a 40/ U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Termination of the Bracero Program: Some Effects on Farm Labor and Migrant Housing Needs, Rept. No. 77, June 1965, pp. 4-6. - 180 - short-term response to an unexpectedly tight labor market for legal residents working in this sector. The U.S. balance of 41/ payments improved by an estimated $50 million annually. The impact of the Bracero program was directly addressed 42/ by a study of the cucumber industry in Michigan. Prior to 1964 the majority of cucumber pickers were Mexicans. Although farm employers had claimed that U.S. workers would not pick cucumbers, in actual practice, U.S. workers became available as wages increased and nonwage provisions of employment improved. Another consequence of the curtailed supply of Mexican labor and the higher wages was an increase in the capital-labor ratio, as growers increased their use of mechanical harvesters. However, the increased costs of pro- duction lowered the income of Michigan cucumber farm owners and raised the price of cucumbers compared to what they would have otherwise been. Two empirical studies that have some bearing on these 43/ issues are by A. Ericson and Brian Rungeling. They studied the labor market impact of Mexican commuters who crossed the 41/ Final Report, California Farm Labor Panel to Secretary of Labor Wirtz, 12/1/65, L.A., Calif. 42/ John D. Mason, "The Aftermath of the Bracero: A Study of the Economic Impact on the Agricultural Hired Labor Market of Michigan from the Termination of Public Law 78" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1969). 43/ A. Ericson, "The Impact of Commuters on the Mexican American Border Area," Monthly Labor Review, 98 (August, 1970) ; Brian Scott Rungeling, "Impact of the Mexican Labor Commuter on the Apparel Industry of El Paso, Texas," (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Kentucky, 1969). - 181 - Mexican border daily to work in the United States. They found that in the border cities where commuters are working, wages were lower and unemployment rates higher than in the rest of the border areas and the country as a whole. The Bracero experience illustrates some important points underlying the impact of immigrants. First, employers of alien labor do not want the migration curtailed as this tends to raise labor costs. Second, the U.S. workers' "disinclination" for jobs usually held by alien labor declines as there are improvements in wages and working conditions. Third, U.S. workers may exaggerate the adverse employment effect of alien workers by assuming that a job held by an alien necessarily means one less job for a citizen. European Guest Workers The countries of northern Europe have in the last decade made extensive use of imported labor for manufacturing and 44/ service jobs in a manner similar to our Bracero program. It is sometimes suggested that this may serve as a model for a U.S. guest worker program for nonfarm jobs. Although there is little hard data on the impact of the European guest workers, a review of the European experience may provide in- sights into the likely effects of a similar program for the United States. 44 / In Western Europe there are about 10 million foreign workers. The largest impact is in Switzerland where almost 1 million alien workers comprise one-quarter of the labor force. - 182 - The immigration to the more developed European countries was in response to the rising real incomes and wages that accompanied the economic growth in the post-World War II period. The rising wages for low skilled workers would have increased the cost of many goods and services, and provided an incentive to bring in lower wage workers to mitigate the low skill "labor shortage." Many believe that this contributed to Europe's economic growth in the 1960's. With the slower rate of economic growth in the 1970's and particularly the recession triggered by the 1973 oil crisis, the relative importance of guest workers has declined. Opinions are shifting as to the long-term economic and political benefits and costs of the guest worker programs. Clearly, the workers migrate in response to jobs that would presumably otherwise not be done or would be done at a higher cost. When they first arrive, guest workers accept low wages, come without their families and place few demands on the social service structure. Thus wages for low skilled workers are held down and existing industrial capacity is used more productively than otherwise. Many migrants initially perceived themselves as temporary, seeking to save some money and then return to their native land. They soon find that their goal to return home is overtaken by the desire for the "good life" in the host nation, the high living costs which make it more difficult to save than had - 183 - been anticipated, and by their acquiring skills that are oq ed productive in the host country. Although they are generally, M cultural and often ethnic strangers, many do not return after the first few years and are eventually joined by their families or marry into the local community. Once established, other relatives and fellow villagers tend to join them. As a result, the demands on housing and social services increase. And, as they acquire skills and knowledge of the country they become more competitive with native workers for jobs and housing. As a result of a growing number of guest workers, rising ethnic (nationalistic) tensions, and the recent recession in the developed countries, policies toward guest workers have changed. However, the magnitude of the actual decline in the use of guest workers is difficult to quantify. In November 1973, Germany announced an end to new guest worker migration. In mid-1974, France followed. The Swiss have declared a ceiling of 600,000 guest workers, down from 1 million, and in Holland numbers are being cut severely despite economic advice which calls a steady supply a stimulus to economic growth. The Dutch government has articulated its stand in a compre- hensive document which argues for stabilizing the present foreign population through family reunion but then ending migration, even at the expense of a diminution in growth. The European experience suggests that beyond some point it may - 184 - be politically and socially, if not economically, better to move capital and modern technology to unskilled labor in the poorer countries, instead of bringing unskilled labor (and the resulting social conflict) to the developed nations. - 185 - D. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION We would expect a large net inflow of illegal alien workers to have an important impact on the economic conditions of the U.S. resident population. The illegal migration appears to be in response to better job opportunities in the United States than in the country of origin, and an inability to acquire a legal status. With regard to the domestic economic impact, the important questions are the nature and magnitude of the effects on the total income received by the legal U.S. population and on the distribution of this income through changes in the occupational distribution, unemployment, relative wages, profits and relative prices. Although quali- tative statements can be made, given our limited information on the size and characteristics of the illegal alien labor force, and on the supply and demand responses in the markets for factors of production and for goods and services, it is not possible at this time to quantify these impacts. To the extent that illegal aliens are predominantly lower skilled workers, their presence tends to lower the wages and working conditions of U.S. workers in low skilled jobs. In the adjustment process, domestic unemployment tends to increase. Over time, however, if the illegal aliens are able to mask their illegal status they can acquire skills and knowledge more relevant to U.S. labor markets and their earnings would increase. They then become more competitive with more skilled U.S. workers. - 186 - The presence of these illegal alien workers tends to raise the average real income of the legal resident population. This effect is mitigated to the extent that the illegals' use of social services and their impact on the criminal justice system exceeds their contribution in the form of taxes. Most apprehended illegal aliens are young adult males who seek to avoid contact with the authorities. If they are representative of the illegal alien population, the use of services by illegal aliens is likely to be relatively small. However, if they were to bring their families with them, their use of social services might exceed the value of their taxes. Public policies with regard to illegal aliens (and the size of legal immigration) should take full account of the effects on both the total income of the legal population and the distribution of this income. However, while fewer restrictions on immigration may increase the average real income of the resident population, the increase creates declining real incomes for those most competitive with the new immigrants. Historically, policy has been directed at minimizing or eliminating such adverse effects. - 187 - This chapter has outlined the variables and parameters of interest in a study of the economic impact of immigrants, whether legal or illegal. For many of these parameters a priori analysis indicates the sign, or direction of the effect. Further research is needed, however, to extend the theoretical analysis and to quantify the relevant parameters. The latter is essential for the estimation of the magnitude of net effects. This type of analysis would provide insight into the optimal size and structure of immigration, and serve as an aid in the reevaluation of immigration policy. - 188 - CHAPTER VI - ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION: SOCIAL ISSUES The issue of employment and earnings of illegals comprisesone important component of the domestic impact of illegal aliens. A variety of other issues are presented by the undocumented migration of large numbers of people to the United States. Loosely defined as the social issues, they are most keenly felt at the community level where they affect in very basic ways thousands of individuals and institutions daily. The framework within which the social issues develop is an outgrowth or extension of the migration principles discussed in Chapter II. It should again be noted that migration is to some extent influenced by laws and policies of host and sending nations. However, it is fundamentally characterized by general principles and patterns which transcend the particular institutions and regulations of individual countries. This same theme applies to re-settlement of population groups. 45/ A. SETTLEMENT PATTERNS OF MIGRANTS The movement of migrant workers from one country to another proceeds in general according to four stages. 45 This section is based on Marshall, Ray, "Economic Factors Influencing the International Migration of Workers", Paper presented at Weatherhead Foundation, San Antonio, April 15, 1975; and Power, Jonathan, "Europe's Army of Immigrants", based on paper commissioned for International Institute for Environment and Development, 1974. - 189 - 1. Young, unmarried adults predominate having moved from rural areas of the sending country (ies). Often they find employment in the agricultural sector. The migrants' intention tends to be to remain temporarily and return home with enough money to improve life there. These workers are generally the more highly educated and aggressive of the working classes from which they originate. 2. Married men join the younger, unmarried adults attracted by stories of opportunity told by returning workers. In both the first and second stages, there is considerable movement back and forth between source and host countries and the host country invariably treats the workers as temporary. 3. Single adults marry natives of the host country and married men send for their wives and families to join them. Movement between countries declines. This stage is brought on by a basic change in aspirations, skills and acculturation of the worker. Sending country conditions no longer appear attrac- tive relative to life in the host country and hope for the future attaches to the new home. It is with the change in aspirations that the conditions which turn temporary workers into permanent residents are set in motion. The change in aspirations is fueled by the increased use of migrants in occupations other than those of the initial penetration point. Favorable experience by host country employers creates the continuing demand which renders the process self-sustaining. 4. Supporting populations of ethnic employers, religious leaders, social service agencies and small businesses appear. They cater to the new groups and are sustained by them. Thus alien workers often first enter the host country with the objective of earning money to gain particular objectives and return home. While many return, many remain undergoing a change in aspirations born of experiences and conditions no longer compatible with realities in their - 190 - native country. This change is reinforced by positive employer reaction to the use of foreign workers. Host countries, on the other hand, tend to adopt measures which restrict employment of migrants and their pattern of movement to the second stage attempting to maximize the productivity of the workers and minimize the net burden of their non-working family members on the social infrastructure and fabric of the host society. Restrictions usually include limiting the employment of the aliens to occupations native workers spurn. The general tendency of native workers to move out of low status jobs is charac- teristic of economic growth and creates a demand for immi- grant workers to fill "undesirable jobs" which, if not redefined, stimulate migration. Despite the attempt, restrictions rarely succeed in preventing permanent settlements. The social and economic forces which bring about a change in the alien's aspirations and job opportunities are greater than the attempts made to check them. Employers will substitute foreign workers for natives as quickly as possible. Friction between native and alien workers tends to be minimal in a growing economy but intensifies during times of unemployment. The competi- tion for jobs exacerbates social relations, even though it may increase the income of the native population as a whole. Tension is magnified by the family settling features of stage - 191- three causing competition for housing and increased participation in public programs. When racial and ethnic differences enter in, conflict is even more likely. Over time, as the foreign worker's aspirations incorporate those of the host country, his initial satisfaction, and more particularly that of his children, shifts to dissatisfaction with discrimination and a desire to obtain equal rights. The second generation acquires greater skills and tends to shun the low status jobs filled by their parents. The demand for cheap labor remains, filled, presumably, by fresh supplies of "temporary" foreign workers. This model is based largely on the experience of worker importation areas such as Europe and the Virgin Islands. Though we cannot prove or disprove its specific features at this time, the research which has been done on U.S. illegal immigration (see Chapters IV and V) tends to support it. Most likely different regions of the country, different ethnic groups and different economic sectors are passing through divergent points of the sequence simultaneously. Under certain circumstances stages may even be bypassed. Nonetheless it offers a framework for understanding some of the social issues attendant to migration. - 192 - B. THE WELFARE ISSUE Much of the attention which has been given to the illegal alien turns on the question of enforcement, jobs, and welfare. Social impact is generally treated via contentions that illegals place substantial burdens on the welfare system. Varying claims, not necessarily supported by hard data, have been made by individuals and by local units of government on this point. Some examples of these claims are: -- A Los Angeles County grand jury recently cited an annual cost of $3.7 million in health care and welfare burdens caused by illegals due to 3,500 aliens receiving assistance. It stated that in 1975, $10.8 million was expended on medical care of illegals. HEW has been sent a bill for this care as the county defines the problem as a federal one. -- Los Angeles County officials have estimated that the termination of welfare to 2,600 illegal aliens has saved $2.7 million in federal, state and county funds. -- New York City alleges that there are nearly 2 million illegals in the metropolitan area - 193 - draining health, education and welfare services for which revenue sharing funds, allocated on the basis of U.S. Census counts, are insufficient. They have called on the federal government to remove the aliens or pay for the expenses the impacted communities disproportionately incur. -- San Diego County officials have stated that during the years 1971-1975 approximately $1.9 million has been spent on 943 illegal alien patients with the largest category of care being deliveries of babies. -- The Immigration and Naturalization Service frequently quotes a figure of $13 billion as the national annual cost in services of illegal aliens. In the broadest sense, public services could include police and fire protection, water and sewage treatment, highway construction, the availability of parks and recreational facilities and the enforcement of labor laws which protect the rights and health of workers. Welfare refers to participation in one or more programs which assist low income families -- General Assistance, Supple- mentary Security Income, Medicaid, Aid to Families with Dependent Children and Food Stamps, Social Security and Unemployment Insurance. Families headed by males who are - 194 - not disabled and not aged cannot get benefits from these programs with the exception of Food Stamps. Social Security and Unemployment Compensation are also income transfer programs but benefits are contingent upon prior contribution through work rather than low income. General Assistance General Assistance is a wholly state-funded benefit program for unemployable persons who are economically disadvantaged. The programs are usually used to provide benefits to such individuals while their application for participation in federal programs is pending. The regula- tions governing General Assistance are different in each state. While some establish citizenship requirements, there is no information on whether or not a substantial problem exists. However, since General Assistance is a transitional program, illegal aliens would become subject to federal program requirements as their applications are processed. It is also a very small program. Therefore, it is unlikely that any significant amount of assistance is given to illegals under General Assistance. - 195 - Supplementary Security Income (SSI) Title XVI of the Social Security Act establishes the Supplementary Security Income program. SSI is designed to "provide supplemental security income to individuals who have attained age 65 or are blind or disabled." The legis- lation prohibits the delivery of services to illegal aliens by requiring that a participant be: a resident of the United States and either (i) a citizen or (ii) an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence or other- wise in the United States under color of law (Section 1614(a)). Although not legislatively mandated, the same requirement has been adopted through regulation by the following programs: Medicaid, Aid to Families with Dependent Children and Food Stamps. As the data in Chapter IV suggests, few illegals are aged and could not therefore get SSI benefits. Medicaid The Medicaid program is authorized by Title XIX of the Social Security Act. Federal funds are made available to supplement state funds in providing medical services to the economically disadvantaged. While the legislation is silent as to alienage/citizenship, HEW regulations specify that reimbursement cannot be made for services to illegal aliens. The language of the regulations is identical to that of the Supplementary Security Income program. Some states have - 196 - requested reimbursement for expenditures in providing services to illegal aliens arguing that: 1. To deny emergency room treatment to anyone is unconscionable 2. The denial of services to illegal aliens creates a potential health hazard for the entire population 3. Immigration law and consequently illegal aliens are a federal responsibility. However, these arguments are not acceptable under current regulations. Only AFDC and Social Security participants and the "medically indigent" are eligible for benefits. Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) Title IV of the Social Security Act authorizes federal payments to the states for programs to furnish "financial assistance and rehabilitation and other services to needy dependent children and the parents or relatives with whom they are living to help maintain and strengthen family life." Intact families with a non-disabled male head cannot generally get benefits. The AFDC legislation does not establish require- ments relating to citizenship/alienage. However, this condition is established by regulation. Food Stamps The Food Stamp program enables low income families to purchase coupons at a discount which are redeemable for food purchases. The legislation for the program is silent on the - 197 - issue of citizenship. Requirements have been established by regulation and are identical to those found in the Supplementary Security Income legislation. In the Food Stamp Certification Handbook (August-1974), state agencies administering the program are instructed to verify the citizenship or legal status in "questionable cases." They are further advised that "to require verification for all cases would be an unreasonable imposition." While state programs are not required to use any specific application form, a recommended form, which includes a question on citizenship, is published in the Hand- book. It is also interesting to note that those agencies which administer the program are directed to report suspected illegal aliens to the INS. Federal Old Age Survivors, and Disability Insurance Benefits Social Security) The Social Security program furnishes retirement income to persons over 65 years of age and to the disabled. Since it depends on employee contributions, it is different from tax FORD base programs. Since 1972, applicants for Social Security cards have been required by law to provide proof of citizen- ship or legal residence. Consequently, there should be no citizenship issue with recent applicants. No provision of the legislation or regulations would prohibit illegal aliens from receiving benefits if they secured a card prior to 1972. However, benefits depend on past contributions which is based on work history under Social Security. - 198 - Unemployment Insurance This income transfer program is a set of programs which provide income for workers who are unemployed. Some occupations, such as agriculture, are not covered. Largely financed by a payroll tax, neither the authorizing legislation nor the regulations make any mention of citizenship. While individual states could possibly establish such requirements, none has them at present. A proposed amendment to the authorizing legislation would establish such a requirement nationally if it became law (proposed amendment to HR-102210). At present, however, illegal aliens who work in jobs covered by the program have the same right to benefits as any other worker. However, a work history requirement is an integral part of the program. - 199 - Thus most public assistance programs are required by regulation or statute to screen for citizenship status. We have not attempted to ascertain the effectiveness of these screening procedures. In addition, eligibility and use of wel- fare programs are largely restricted to women without husbands but with dependent children, the elderly, the sick who are poor, and the disabled. Relatively few non-aged men are public assistance program users except through Unemployment Compen- sation and Food Stamps. It is difficult to make generalized statements about the characteristics of illegals or their impact on the basis of the limited data available. However the data currently available points to an illegal alien population which is overwhelmingly young (70% under 30) and employed, character- istics unlike those of public assistance recipients. Substan- tial proportions of illegals seem to be sending remittances to the country of origin (75%) and paying social security (77%) The North-Houstoun research shows that only 1.5% used food stamps, 4% collected unemployment and 4.6% received free health care. Neither the allegations of massive incursions into wel- fare, more precisely income transfer programs by illegals, nor the limited research which shows the opposite, are neces- sarily reliable. A great deal of attention should be given to the development of a profile of the illegal alien popula- tion characteristics which might serve as the basis of a com- parison with the profile of those receiving public assistance. - 200 - The task forces have examined the subject closely, however, and find the welfare fraud arguments to be somewhat overdrawn on the basis of the current evidence. Instead, welfare usage should be regarded as but one of a range of issues that arise as handmaidens of settlement. Our model suggests that welfare usage would increase in the latter stages of settlement. Before any accurate assessments can be made about current and prospective welfare burdens, we will need to know more about: (a) the extent of family relationships involved in our illegal alien numbers; (b) the duration of stay and mobility of illegal alien groups; and (c) the efficacy of procedures to assure that only eligible individuals receive benefits. -201 - C. SOCIAL AND COMMUNITY IMPACT Population Growth In recent years, the U. S. has experienced declining birth rates and an attendant slowing in overall growth. As a result the subject of population growth has begun to surface as an important component of immigration policy considera- tions. Since we do not know the extent of illegal immigra- tion today, we cannot define the proportion of population growth it creates. However, it is instructive to assess the role legal immigration plays in population growth as an avenue toward revealing the relationship between population growth and illegal immigration. Immigration has, since the 1965 amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act, assumed increased importance as a major contributor to U.S. population growth. It is less than we experienced during the peak years prior to World War I but more than that of the post-World War II years. The 1972 report of the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future shows that the relative importance of immigration as a component of population growth has and will increase significantly as a decline in birthrates lowers the natural increase. Between 1960 and 1970 about 16 percent of total population was due to net immigration. If net - 202 - immigration is maintained at the current rate (approximately 400,000 per year) and all families have an average of two children, immigration between now and 2000, plus descendants, will number 15 million, nearly one-fourth of the total projected population increase for that period. In July 1976, the Subcommittee of Population Education, Federal Interagency Committee on Education published a report entitled Population Education and the Federal Role. The report notes the impact of international migration on U.S. society. If both fertility and illegal immigration continue at current levels, all growth in the U.S. will derive from immigration by the year 2035. Today legal immigrants account for about 30% of the U.S. population growth and because of the present low fertility the relative contri- butions of immigration to population growth is increasing yearly. Not only the growth but the distribution of population is affected. Immigrants prefer metropolitan areas and concentrate in a few. states. Assuming current tendencies prevail, two-thirds will settle in six states -- New York, California, New Jersey, Illinois, Texas and Massachusetts. Immigration as defined and experienced by the United States pursuant to the law is a central factor in growth. To the extent that some workings of the current law contribute to illegal immigration, and to the extent that we have been relatively unable to control the sheer size - 203 - of such a migration, immigration becomes all the more important as a determinant in projecting future population growth. Levels of illegal immigration are not accurately known, but most recent estimates run to several million yearly. Since FY 1974, INS apprehension statistics for illegal aliens have hovered around three-quarters of a million annually. At an estimate of 1 million persons per year, the United States population increase of 1.2 million persons in 1975 is in effect doubled as a result of illegal immigration. The following table of U.S. Population Pro- jections gives us some indication of the effects of legal and illegal immigration given the historically low, current fertility rate of 1.8 children per woman and given the replacement fertility rate of 2.1 children per woman. Although this information is insufficient to judge the extent of the impact that immigration, both legal and illegal, will have on the U.S., it is sufficient to indicate that serious consideration must be given to the question of the proper level of immigration in the context of dwindling resources and desired growth. - 204 - U.S. POPULATION PROJECTIONS 1.8 TFR plus 1.8 TFR plus 2.1 TFR plus 2.1 TFR plus YEAR 400,000 immig. 1.2 M immig. 400,000 immig. 1.2 M immig. 1980 222,966,000 223,548,000 227,253,000 227,852,000 1985 232,526,000 236,050,000 241,517,000 145,187,000 1990 240,999,000 247,393,000 255,021,000 261,754,000 1995 247,746,000 256,844,000 267,084,000 276,776,000 2000 253,252,000 265,289,000 278,205,000 291,170,000 2005 258,129,000 273,980,000 288,986,000 306,213,000 2010 262,400,000 282,954,000 299,374,000 321,883,000 2015 265,758,000 291,420,000 308,980,000 337,302,000 2020 267,877,000 298,826,000 317,412,000 351,855,000 2025 268,608,000 305,173,708 324,470,000 365,511,000 The first column of data assumes a continuation of the current fertility rate of 1.8 children per woman, a legal immigration rate of 400,000 immigration, and an illegal immigration rate of zero. The second column assumes a continuation of the current fertility rate, plus a legal immigration rate of 400,000 and an illegal immigration rate of 800,000. The third column assumes an increase in fertility to replacement level (2.1 children per woman) by 1980, a legal immigration rate of 400,000 and an illegal immigration rate of zero. Column four assumes an increase in fertility to replacement level by 1980, plus a legal immigration rate of 400,000, and an illegal immigration rate of 800,000.* *Assumptions 1 Population size equals the total U.S. population including armed forces overseas as of July 15, 1975 (by age and sex). 2 Age and sex structure of all immigrants (both legal and illegal) is the same. (Source: Census Bureau, Current Population Reports, Series P-25, No. 601, p. 134.) 3The survival ratios are different for males and females but are similar for all races and for natives and immigrants. (Source: Census Bureau, Current Population Reports, Series P-25, No. 601, p. 130. ) 4 That average age-specific fertility rates for women age 15-49 are used. Fertility rates apply to all women by single year of age, regardless of race or nationality. 5 The timing of births (proportionate distribution of births to women) is similar to the actual childbearing pattern of 1973. The timing of childbearing is assumed to be the same for all races and for natives and immigrations. (Source: Census Bureau, Current Population Reports, Series P-25, No. 601, p. 125.) - 205 - INS Enforcement Immigration policy in general and its effects on certain groups within the society in particular have always been the source of varying degrees of controversy and bitterness. Today the most vigorous opposition to enforcement policy comes from the ethnic groups and communities that find significant numbers of illegal aliens in their midst. Their attitudes, rooted in negative experiences and a history of racial-type conflicts, have the potential for causing serious conflict at the local level in the future. Two distinct types of community organizations are openly critical of INS enforcement policy. One of these can be classified as ethnic civil rights organizations, the other as groups which defend the rights of aliens in general. 1. Ethnic Community Organizations These groups are composed of American citizens who are members of an identifiable ethnic group and consider themselves singled out for enforcement emphasis because of their cultural origins. They resent having to prove that they are U.S. citizens when other Americans are not required to do SO. Because the majority of the enforcement effort is now directed at Mexican illegal aliens, it is prin- cipally Hispanic groups that have raised charges of civil rights violations. Any enforcement activity which has the appearance of being targeted towards Hispanic or any other ethnic community will continue to inspire strong criticism. - 206 - 2. Aliens' Rights Organizations According to these organizations, aliens have rights under the Constitution which are consistently violated by INS. Such organizations would like to have the rights of aliens recognized and clearly defined by law. Such rights may include: freedom from discrimination in employment, and recogni- tion of the right to receive services, the right to counsel. Some of these groups would like the U.S. to adopt a much more open immigration policy. The strongest reaction to INS enforcement activities in the past has been caused by residential or community enforcement tactics. Residential enforcement involves surrounding an entire city block and questioning everyone, raiding movie theaters and boarding houses and questioning persons at bus stops on their way to work. These techniques antagonized many persons because they seemed to imply that members of these communities were second-class citizens or were all here illegally. Many complaints have been in response to such raids; INS has recently abandoned such techniques. Community reaction to employer-focused enforcement is much milder. Such activity bears little apparent relation- ship to the ethnic group even though it may make up the bulk of the employees. If the employer is cooperative, the inspection may be limited to the examination of personnel records. If the visit is in response to a tip, INS may already have the names of the persons it is seeking. - 207 - More than 80 percent of the illegal aliens apprehended by INS are located at the border or a few miles inland. Much of the border enforcement activity generates relatively little adverse reaction. If the apprehension is made under circumstances which clearly indicate that the individual has just crossed the border at other than a port of entry, no civil rights violation can be alleged. However, the questioning of individuals at bus stations close to the border and at checkpoints along the highway remains a source of friction between the Border Patrol and the Mexican-American community in the Southwest. Persons chosen for questioning are usually dark skinned and consequently the Hispanic community feels singled out for enforcement emphasis. The involvement of local law enforcement agencies in immigration activities gives rise to additional problems. These agencies are often unaware of usual policies in the enforcement of immigration law or hostile to the feelings of ethnic communities. While the basis for community hostility is apparent, the dilemma which it highlights is difficult. How does an agency enforce the law in a free society when the illegal act is the presence of an individual who cannot readily be identified? Officials know that there are large numbers of Hispanic illegal aliens and the society wants - 208 - the most enforcement and efficiency possible for the tax dollar. Therefore greater screening and resources befall Hispanic origin individuals who may believe them- selves unduly singled out because it makes strategic sense. Furthermore the Hispanic community itself is in disagreement over the dilemma. In a recent Gallup Poll 72% of the Latin American origin group interviewed felt that a law against hiring illegal aliens should be passed and 46% felt illegal aliens should be sent back to their homes. However, another attitude survey, conducted by the University of San Diego School of Law, reports that while 45% of Hispanic respondents support law enforcement policies which target employers, only 16% indicated they would be likely to assist in the effort by reporting the presence of an illegal alien. Furthermore, 44% agreed with the proposition that illegals take employment opportunities from U.S. citizens but only 7% felt they ever failed to obtain employment or lost a job to an illegal alien. Enforcement policy in the past has subjected the Mexican-American and other ethnic communities to inconveniences which were not borne by Americans as a whole. While INS policy has already been modified in response to mounting complaints, every effort should be made to ensure that the rights of all Americans are respected and that our immigration policy does not convey or appear to convey - 209 - second-class citizenship to any ethnic group. Recommenda- tions containing measures that would help to ameliorate the problems faced by ethnic communities as a result of the influx of illegal aliens are contained at the end of this chapter. In addition, a great deal of confusion exists regarding the legal rights of both legal resident aliens and illegal aliens posing another interesting philosophical question: What are the legal rights of persons who have no legal status here? Clarification of these questions would be of enormous benefit to law enforcement agencies, the administrators of public assistance programs, American ethnic communities and legal resident aliens. Anti-Alien Sentiment Americans are proud of presenting the nation of immigrants image pointing to the Statue of Liberty and the sentiments it represents. In fact, behavior toward newcomers from strange lands bringing different ways has throughout our history been anything but benevolent. There continue to be strong nativist attitudes and institutions in this country which do not view immigrants as desirable. The - 210 - illegal aspect of recent immigration serves to intensify these feelings and can cause severe strain and tension. Along with prejudice, there is a growing antipathy toward the illegal which springs from the perception that (a) jobs and services are being expropriated by illegals at the expense of natives and the public Treasury; and (b) illegals are in violation of the law and therefore cannot be tolerated. These attitudes have been revealed in several large metropolitan areas primarily in two forms: 1. Proposals for state legislation and local ordinances barring illegals from eligibility for employment or participation in services. Six state legislatures are currently considering legislation which would make it illegal for employers to employ illegal aliens. 46/ New York is closest to achieving passage and sounds a common theme: if the Federal government won't act to protect us from the influx, we will take measures to protect ourselves. Reports of local actions designated to keep the children of illegals out of public schools and ineligible for related services are also beginning to appear. 2. Organization or reactivation of community associa- tions around the issue of illegals and their debilitating effect on neighborhoods and the survival of a certain way of life. These groups exert considerable political pressure on their legislative representatives. More important they create severe polarization within impacted areas which results in generalized suspicion toward "foreigners" regardless of their legal status and a menacing form of scapegoating which ties the problems of housing, urban flight, overburdened services and quality of life to the presence of illegal aliens. 46 In a February, 1976 decision, DeCanas V. Bica, the Supreme Court held that a California state law which prohibits an employer from knowingly employing an illegal alien is not unconstitutional as a regulation of immigration, a power which rests exclusively with the federal government. It referred to the California state courts the question of whether the statute itself would conflict with the INA or other federal laws or regulations. - 211 - Both the problems of INS enforcement and anti- alien sentiment have serious community strife potential. The settlement thesis outlined earlier in this chapter indicates that tension appears in the fourth stage, when families move permanently into certain areas and support populations appear. There is evidence to support the contention that in some of our large metropolitan areas this final stage has developed. The friction which accompanies it will be felt most keenly by the legal immigrant and ethnic populations whose very real need for assistance in overcoming culture shock, language barriers and the like may be met by an atmosphere of dis- trust and whose economic and political power to mitigate it is minimal. Federal-State-Local Relations The illegal alien issue presents a peculiar dis- proportionality in the roles of respective levels of government. Problems are felt at the local and regional level but local officials have few tools with which to respond for the laws involved are federal. On the other hand the Federal government administers immigration policy, somewhat mindful of its long-run implications for the nation as a whole, but far removed from the state and local levels of government where the outcome of its actions are felt. - 212 - Intra-governmental communication and cooperation on this issue is very important and has been virtually non- existent. This neglect has given rise to unrealistic demands from local governments for millions of dollars in reimbursements for services allegedly rendered to illegals. It has created lawsuits over fiscal responsibility as well as serious criticism from publicly funded and private community agencies who handle ever increasing caseloads. It has caused some local law enforcement officials to refuse to contact INS officials when illegal status is uncovered in the course of their work because their assistance in immigration work costs necessary community support in other aspects of their law enforce- ment responsibilities. The prospect which faces state and local government officials is a somber one. The settling in of substantial numbers of illegals has produced underground communities of people whose existence depends on evading and avoiding contact with the law and with government in any form. Above all we are a nation of laws dependent upon the institutions and systems which are created and regulated by law to maintain justice and equity in our communal existence. The illegal alien, both adds to the burdens upon society's infrastructures and is fearful of using services because it increases the likelihood of discovery and appre- hension. This reluctance is a further dimension of the - 213 - issue. People who are underground cannot be counted for planning or fiscal allocation purposes; they cannot be protected from abuse on the job or from landlords, dis- crimination, disease, or crime; they may avoid education for children; and they are unable or reluctant to assert political or legal rights. Thus there is the possibility of a substantial underclass which must avoid the legitimate institutions and government of the society in order to survive. This has long-range implications for education, housing, criminal justice planning, and other important areas of primary state and local government responsibility. - 214 - D. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Migrants settle in new areas according to a general pattern which consists of four stages. In the initial stages they come singly with the intention of remaining only temporarily usually for economic reasons. However for many, aspirations and opportunities change and become transferred to the host country. This brings on the latter stages when families are formed or sent for and support populations appear. The latter stages can cause tension and conflict over jobs and services with some groups in the native population. Very likely different areas of the country and different illegal population groups are at varying stages of this process today. Allegations of heavy illegal alien use of tax- supported income transfer programs are common. An examination of these programs shows that the majority depend on characteristics such as old age, female head of household, or disabled for eligibility. Present information shows that illegal aliens are unlikely to be making heavy use of such programs due to very different personal characteristics. Our tentative conclusion is that the welfare use issue is overdrawn. However, final judgment is dependent on better information delineating the characteristics of the illegal population. Several - 215 - other social issues merit consideration. Population growth, discriminatory effects of enforcement, anti-alien sentiment and the formation of underground communities are of concern. These issues require a great deal of further analysis but will become increasingly important as settlement proceeds into the final stage. The federal government must work far more closely with state and local governments at which level impacts are most dramatically felt particularly in the area of social tension and strife, a characteristic of permanent settlement. Recommendations 1. Enforcement activities which minimize community and ethnic hostility should be stressed. Border enforcement and employer targeting are far less controversial than residence-oriented enforcement and are therefore preferable. Greater attention should be given to overcoming the negative effects of INS practices on ethnic, particularly Hispanic, groups. This should include: - An expanded public information and education program to keep communities aware of the law, INS policies and practices and to enlist voluntary cooperation and support for enforcement from ethnic communities. This emphasis should build upon the "neighborhood storefront" concept recently tested in Chicago. Under such a program, persons can obtain information about their immigration status without risking apprehension by INS. - 216 - - Establish a grievance mechanism that would quickly redress injuries resulting from overzealous enforcement. - Establish a program to ensure consistency between INS policies and those of assisting law enforce- ment agencies. - Clarify questions relating to aliens' rights, including legislation if necessary. 2. The illegal immigration issue must be treated in the context of population growth and the long-term effects on birthrates in the U.S. This requires detailed analysis and improved information and should be intro- duced as an important variable in the current debate over dwindling resources and growth. 3. Develop close communication and coordination with state and local units of government where illegal aliens live and work. Cooperation should be sought immediately in such areas as: - enforcement coordination; - U.S.-Mexico border problems; - research and information; - administrative program and legal procedures for expenditures in government programs; and - legislation. - 217 - CHAPTER VII DILEMMAS FOR THE FUTURE Immigration matters present challenging and perplexing questions. As a nation we have shown decided ambivalence about immigration policy maintaining an exclusionary law as our basic statement of policy and at the same time pointing with pride to our heritage as a nation of immigrants and to the idealism symbolized in the Statue of Liberty's welcome to the oppressed of the world. We cling to the belief that ours should be a land offering opportunity to those who would help to build it but we have been willing to discriminate blatantly over time in identifying those whom we welcome. Immigration is often treated in highly emotional, politically charged terms yet implementation of the system necessary to carry out the law has been low on our national list of funding priorities, vesting extra- ordinary discretion in the enforcement agencies on matters which affect individual lives in the most fundamental and dramatic ways. To formulate policy on the issue of illegal aliens, the government must consider the larger question of immigra- tion policy in general. Today comprehensive planning on immigration matters presents several major dilemmas for the society which must be acknowledged as central to the debate. - 218 - A. CONTROL First is the issue of control inherent in fashioning a truly effective system of enforcement of immigration laws. Present document use and personal identification systems in this country are inadequate from a law enforcement point of view for effective control. We know, for instance, that the number of fraudulently documented entrants to the U.S. is 10 times greater than the number detected. In addition, INS cannot confirm the departure of 10% of the temporary arrivals or 600,000 persons annually. Departure control which, when untended, leads to false claims and documentation for citizenship and identification of alien status are essential to effective immigration enforcement. However, they require computerized recordkeeping, inter- system exchanges of information and secure documentation procedures which violate perceptions of the right to civil freedoms and personal privacy. A work permit system akin to that utilized in most other industrialized nations in the free world would ease matters considerably by making citizenship status a consideration in the hiring of workers. However a work permit system limits certain freedoms we enjoy and have been unwilling to yield. The need for control and the commitment to certain individual freedoms need not and should not constitute a tradeoff. Yet finding a suitable balance - 219 - in this area is far from accomplished. Accepting a certain degree of illegal immigration may necessarily be a price, perhaps even a desirable price, to pay. Immigration enforcement must also be evaluated in the overall hierarchy of law enforcement demands. Presently the border is a revolving door. On the individual level, illegal entry is a victimless crime. We repatriate undocumented workers on a massive scale only through Mexican cooperation. The illegals cooperate by agreeing to voluntary departure and significant numbers promptly re-enter. It is not unusual for an illegal to undergo multiple apprehensions and re-entries for there are no serious deterrents. The policy of U.S. Attorneys is to waive prosecution, except for the most aggravated offenses, and our penal system has no capacity to ingest large numbers of illegals. In FY 1974, there were 741, 349 violations which could be entertained for prosecution; over 92 percent were closed by blanket or general waiver. Even serious offenses such as smuggling are profitable. Smugglers were fined an average of $88 per conviction as against an earning of $200 per alien. Thus the border situation represents a virtual standoff. American labor was responsible for the abolishment of provisions to bring temporary labor into the area. Agricultural and other interests have continued to fill their labor needs through a system of illegal immigration. There are actions - 220 - which can be taken to impede the illegal alien flow across the border. For example, during Operation Intercept in late 1969, through the flooding of enforcement personnel in the border area and the application of rigid screening procedures at ports of entry without considering inconveniences to travelers, we were able to seal off the border quite effectively. Another approach is the more widespread use of fencing or other types of barriers. Clearly the relative importance of immigration enforcement, travel ease and powerful domestic interests are at issue making the choices complex. - 221 - B. INFORMATION Underlying much of the current discussion is the assumption that if we only knew the true dimensions of the illegal alien issue and its impact, we could target resources to the level of compliance that we wish to achieve. This notion may well be wishful thinking. We may never know the dimensions of this issue. Research into the characteristics and impact of a clandestine population presents extraordinary difficulties. Some researchers believe it is similar to subjects like pornography or victimization and is therefore unresearchable. In addition, extant data systems on immigration and immigration-related matters are very primitive. Hard data on illegal aliens is virtually non-existent. The principal repository of data on immigration, legal or illegal, is the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Related information is held by the Department of State due to its visa issuance function and by the Bureau of the Census. Visa demand and issuance information is capable of being used to establish patterns and the decennial census contains valuable information about the foreign-born population in the United States. INS records containing social security numbers can be matched with social security data to obtain earnings histories. - 222 - However, State and Census information is useful only to the extent that it can be used in conjunction with information flowing from the functions uniquely performed by INS. INS is an agency with law enforcement as its primary mission. It is distinguished from other law enforcement agencies by the fact that it has a major service mission to carry out in addition. Thus data collection and analysis are not priority functions. The information which is accumulated relates to operational needs and is not research-oriented or in any way compatible with systems maintained by the State Department or Census Bureau. Implementation of illegal alien study programs is forcing INS to systematize and examine its data operations in an effort to incorporate the study data so it can be continually updated. However, it is but a first step. INS is the primary and often the only source of data on immigrants, legal and illegal. Information on these groups due to their size and socio-economic and political importance is central to adequate planning and evaluation of immigration, population and employment policy. Until this is recognized and increased priority through resources and expertise is directed to it, effective planning on all immigration matters, of which illegal entry is but one manifestation, will continue to be largely uninformed. If INS, due to its enforcement - 223 - role, is ill-suited also to serve as the sole or major repository of statistical information, data systems and research on the effects of the law and policy it administers, perhaps the functions of another agency ought to be extended to include improvement of our knowledge of the causes, consequences and characteristics of immigration to the U.S. The lack of data coupled with a search for ways to develop reliable information for evaluating the impact of illegal aliens in the U.S. occupied substantial effort in several of the task forces. Specific study recommendations appear at the end of this chapter. However while serious study must be directed not only at illegal immigration but at the related issues it raises, the paradox we face rests with the realization that as time brings more knowledge about the illegal, time may also entrench illegal immigration so as to render it an increasingly irreversible trend. - 224 - C. FOREIGN POLICY Were the differences between underdeveloped and developed nations not so great, the pressures creating illegal immigration would, presumably, disappear. This suggests emphasizing economic growth through aid, overseas investment and the like. Certainly these are not novel solutions. Significant resources and attention have been funneled into the countries involved in illegal immigration for decades past. Yet in many cases, the gap is indeed widening. Thus not only is no end in sight, some conclude the world will in fact lose the development battle. Such cosmic questions notwithstanding, it is not the difficulty of economic development per se that causes the problem before us. In fact, high out-migration countries tend to be those experiencing laudable success in their economic expansion. Rather it is the strain to which economic growth is put in the face of extra- ordinary rates of population growth. Development must run in order to simply stand in place due to burgeoning numbers of people. From a foreign policy point of view probably the most productive position to pursue is a singleminded, long-term commitment to population planning in developing nations. For numerous reasons which need not be discussed in this review, it would require major policy revisions for the United States, at least publicly, to embrace population control as the core element of policy with illegal alien source countries. - 225 - However, even if such a strategy should emerge, there are already in the pipeline sufficient numbers of people to create severe population pressure for this and the next generation at a minimum. It is only realistic to assume that the United States will in all probability absorb some of this excess. Thus the question may turn to the form in which we adjust to reality rather than to whether or not we accept it, the latter providing, in simplistic terms, the impetus for the Domestic Council committee's existence. In other words, the choice may already no longer be ours. Without promoting a Doomsday mentality, it is not beyond the realm of possibility to speculate that private investment overseas and the priorities of host governments may well exacerbate migration in favoring capital rather than labor intensive growth. Furthermore the export of capital is virtually free of political boundary considerations whereas barriers to migration make the free movement of labor, viewed by some nations as a corresponding economic force, impossible. The circumstances under which such themes become joined with migration issues, if indeed they ever do merge, are impossible to predict. It would seem, however, that in spite of whatever difficulties migration may present within the United States, we will not as a nation see or support a fundamental restructuring of our outlook or practices on these matters. - 226 - Instead the reality of excess populations may be confronted through developing distinctions between various types of migrations, encouraging some due to the education and skills for instance of the migrants deemed to be desirable, and discouraging others as a result of negative domestic impacts. Strong competing interests and trends will meet as the international aspects of illegal migration converge with domestic priorities. Probably the most appropriate context within which to formulate new goals is the growing debate over our own levels of and need for growth. - 227 - D. GROWTH The illegal alien problem is at one level a problem of a breakdown in law resulting in a substantial number of people in the U.S. who are not authorized to be here. Control over who enters and exits from a nation is universally recognized as a basic feature of national sovereignty and erosion in the exercise of that sovereignty is a serious matter. At another level the illegal alien problem is a question of too many unintended immigrants. At this level the problem becomes one of determining the optimal size and nature of immigration to the United States. Since immigration is a central component in assessing the rate and nature of growth in this country, both growth of population and growth of our work force, it merits full public education and debate. There are many steps recommended in this report which we can and must take to alleviate the problem of a breakdown in our law as currently conceived. But the illegal alien issue also raises the necessity to rethink immigration at its most important, provocative level. How many people should be allowed to enter the United States annually to take up permanent residence? What proportions should gain entry as a result of family ties in the U.S., employment characteristics, or refugee status? Should our neighboring countries, Canada and Mexico, receive special treatment in the allocation of numbers for immigrant slots? Should the - 228 - law distinguish between Eastern and Western Hemisphere origins? What role should domestic demands for foreign labor play in immigration policy? What techniques can be used to predict the effects of changes in immigration laws? These questions must be studied and debated and answers must be proposed in light of current and expected domestic and international circumstances. Immigration policy involves difficult, far-reaching considerations which require policy attention. Effective solutions to the illegal alien problem must be developed within the framework of overall changes in immigration policy. Although information is no substitute for careful analysis and reasoned judgment, the process of reviewing and revising immigration policy, with illegal immigration as a foremost issue, will be immeasurably aided by improved information. The Committee recommends that the following broad areas receive priority research concentration. - 229 - E. RESEARCH RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The Illegal Alien Population Due to recent pressures on INS to provide a better understanding of the illegal alien issue, Congress recently appropriated $1 million to contract studies yielding information on the number and characteristics of illegal aliens in the United States. The Domestic Council Committee has worked closely with INS drawing upon expertise from traditionally more research oriented agencies to design a study which will be sound and which will meet general policy needs of several government agencies concerned about the illegal alien issue. Our recommendations have been that the INS study strive to develop a minimum number, or a baseline, of illegals in the United States rather than a total number and that it concentrate on developing information which is useful in determining the impacts and rate of growth of illegal migration to the United States. The study will not be complete for another year. 2. Similarities to the Foreign Born One of the most promising sources of basic socio- economic information on illegal aliens is the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) Form #213 which is completed for each apprehended illegal alien. The form asks age, sex, marital status, social security number, country of origin, time in the United States, and whether employed, among other questions. - 230 - Persons apprehended at the border (sector offices) have not been successful in penetrating the United States and presumably do not have a direct impact on the United States economy. Illegal aliens who are apprehended at locations other than the border are brought to a district office and interviewed. It is these persons who presumably have been residing in, and have had an impact on the United States. A preliminary examination of #213's filed in the Washington, D. C. and Chicago offices indicates that the forms are carefully filled out. We propose that a random sample be taken from the approximately 160,000 #213's filed in district offices in 1975. This would not necessarily represent a random sample of illegal aliens residing in the United States since the probability of being apprehended may vary in a systematic manner with relevant characteristics or enforcement priorities. It would, however, be a first step in a systematic analysis of apprehended illegal alien data. This data would provide insights into the characteristics and impact of illegal aliens directly and could then be compared with Census Data on the foreign born to determine similarities and differences between these population groups in order to develop further insights into the impact of illegal aliens. - 231 - 3. The Displacement Factor One of the central questions surrounding the issue of the impact of illegal aliens on the labor market centers on whether illegal aliens actually "displace" legal residents from jobs they would otherwise have taken and the effect on the earnings of legal residents: (a) What is the effect of the presence of illegal aliens on wages and working conditions in different jobs? (b) To what extent do domestic workers adjust their labor force participation and occupational choice to changes in wage rates and working conditions? To what extent do income support payments serve as an impediment to labor force and occupational adjustments for legal residents? (c) What are the labor force characteristics of the illegals: wages, skill, and occupational distribution, labor force participation, unemployment, etc.? (d) What is the effect of illegal aliens on GNP, on the distribution of this income and on the efficiency of resource allocation? (e) What is the net social cost (or net social benefit) from illegals? How can the net cost be minimized? 4. Use of Public Services The question of whether or not illegal aliens create a FORD LIBRARY burden for public service programs is of considerable - 232 - importance in assessing the significance of their presence to this country. There is, however, very little data to support any conclusions on this topic. Most studies tend to indicate that the use of public services by illegal aliens is infrequent. Unfortunately, the quality of this data is poor. A meaningful assessment of this question cannot be made until additional research has been done. Such studies may need to address the different groups within the illegal alien population, different areas of the country and the different services. --- One HEW study which will shortly be underway deals with the medical costs incurred by illegal immigrants. This project will attempt to determine the magnitude of the problem in seven different cities where large numbers of illegal aliens are apprehended by the INS. Researchers will determine what criteria hospitals use in identifying illegal aliens and how accurate these identifications are. The study will assign a rough dollar figure to the services rendered and will be able to conclude whether or not a substantial problem exists for the hospitals included in the study. -- In an effort to encourage Federal/state interaction, case studies using state agencies, immigration aid groups and the like should be undertaken at the local - 233 - level. One promising area of inquiry would be a study of the impact on the educational system of a large city such as Los Angeles or New York. The County of San Diego has already undertaken a systematic search of its records and agencies in an effort to determine the uses of its services by illegal aliens. The problem with this approach rests with creating non- comparable data and using incompatible methodologies. 5. Migration Patterns The rise of Third World nations, their exploding populations and the implications for interregional economic development are becoming more apparent. In our case, there is the added dimen- sion of border region research and policies. Research should concentrate on the following areas: -- Comparative study of migration experience, including intra-European and intra-Caribbean migration, including guest workers, and the mechanisms which have been developed in those areas. -- Demographic trends and policies and their impact on migration to the border zones and from one country to another. -- The impact that movement of people has on international transfer of science and technology. -- Evaluation of alternatives for economic assistance for the development of the border regions in Mexico. Specific attention would be given to those elements essential for a coordinated and integrated economic approach. - 234 - 6. Community Attitudes For the future, more should be done in the way of assessing the perceptions of certain communities towards illegal aliens, their impacts and the relative effects of various law enforcement techniques which are used to identify such persons. 7. Immigrant Studies The ethnic makeup of our legal immigration since 1965 is considerably different from that of the preceding era. The ethnicity and the demographic characteristics of immigrants are increasing in importance as social policy issues because of government programs. More research must be devoted to longitudinal analysis of legal immigrants. At this time study should concentrate upon the optimal characteristics of immigration including analysis of admission criteria and systems. U.S. experiences with guest worker type programs and comparative analysis with labor importing countries should be assessed in order to evaluate the trade in goods or trade in labor supplies questions immigration policy poses. - 235 - CHAPTER VIII CONCLUSIONS AND MAJOR RECOMMENDATIONS In drawing conclusions and formulating recommendations, it is important to reemphasize the preliminary nature of this report. The illegal immigration phenomenon is complex and an interagency examination of this issue is a very recent develop- ment. The charge to the Domestic Council Committee was to develop a comprehensive approach to the issue. In furtherance of that goal, this report attempts to provide a clear statement of the issue in its broad terms, assess current information, and chart the process and tasks through which the executive branch of government should proceed as a result. One clear theme of this report is that a dramatic lack of reliable information makes thorough analysis of illegal immigration impossible at this time. Thus the conclusions which the Committee has drawn are tentative and subject to revision. Nevertheless the Committee believes that certain judgments can and should be made in an effort to channel further inquiry in a productive fashion. A. CONCLUSIONS 1. Illegal immigration is rooted in powerful social and economic forces endemic to both host and sending countries. Historically Mexico has been and remains a major source of illegal entrants to the United States. - 236 - However illegal immigration today involves many nations and new migration streams. Sending countries are typically rapidly developing nations where rising expectations combined with population pressure have far surpassed the ability of economic growth, albeit substantial, to narrow significantly the income gap with the U.S. Thus pressure to emigrate is intense, and large numbers of people have already emigrated to the United States legally from source countries in accordance with the 1965 Amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). These amendments markedly changed legal immigration to permit large numbers of Latin and Asian origin groups and to diminish numbers of Europeans who immigrate. Illegal immigration must be studied in the context of migration incentives and the law governing legal entry. United States employers seek foreign workers for many kinds of work. Thus economic opportunity and kinship and culture ties in the U.S. combine with migration pressures to create potent push-pull forces which the INA was not designed to check. 2. Illegal immigration is significant and growing. Current estimates of the stock and flow of illegal aliens are educated guesses at best. Establishing these numbers in a credible fashion is important. Although - 237 - sound numbers are not available, the relevant point for current policy purposes is that the illegal immigration phenomenon is significant and growing. Our immigration policy, as promulgated under the INA, is ineffective. Our official commitment is to an exclusionary policy founded in history and domestic political considerations which allows approximately 400,000 foreign-born to take up permanent legal residence in this country per annum. The de facto situation is quite the opposite in that a combination of legal loopholes and incentives, enforce- ment inadequacies, and international push-pull forces have considerably eased limitations on immigration so that in practice we have a very open immigration system. Analysis of this combination of factors leads inevitably to the conclusion that a trend has been established which is likely to grow if present circumstances persist. 3. The major impact of illegal aliens at this time seems to be in the labor market. This impact is likely to extend over time to other areas as the process of settlement proceeds. Illegal aliens compete effectively with native workers, particularly with the minimally skilled and under-employed, although the degree to which they actually displace native workers is unclear. These immigrants raise the income of owners of capital and - 238 - land and of highly skilled workers and lower prices to consumers of goods and services they help produce. Thus certain legal residents gain and others, parti- cularly those with few skills, lose from the presence of illegal aliens. However the unskilled labor which the illegal generally contributes in the early stages of migration later tends to be offset by the costs incurred in the latter stages of migration when new communities of families must be absorbed. This result occurs during settlement, the end-product of migration. Initially the migrant generally intends to emigrate only temporarily. However his aspirations, objectives and opportunities become attached to the host country so that he eventually remains, establish- ing or sending for family rather than returning. 4. The community-related implications of large numbers of illegal aliens are significant and merit government attention. The ineffectiveness of the INA has helped to create communities concentrated in our largest urban centers whose existence depends on avoidance of law and authority. Breeding these conditions signals long-run negative social implications for ethnic Americans and for the ability of state and local units of government to function effectively. Aside from the question of economic impact, the ramifica- tions of harboring large numbers of people in illegal - 239 - status are undesirable and contribute to a breakdown in the institutions and systems upon which we depend for fair government. 5. Effective enforcement of the Immigration and Nationality Act must stress prevention above all other considerations. It is vastly more desirable from both a policy and a resources standpoint to prevent entry of the illegal or screen out potential illegals before arrival than to locate and apprehend the illegal once he is in the U.S. This strategy is currently accepted but it will require more adequate resources for both the State Department and the Immigration and Naturalization Service, improved management and tactics, legislation, and greater cooperation among federal agencies with related enforcement responsi- bilities to be effective. 6. Effective enforcement is not enough. The illegal alien issue is ultimately an issue of immigration policy and will not be satisfactorily met until a thorough rethinking of our immigration policy is undertaken. Who may enter this country for what periods of time under which circumstances are the questions we must, as a nation, answer. These questions in turn raise questions about employment, population, and - 240 - other broad policy areas. The law must be revised to incorporate current and future realities not envisaged in the 1965 deliberations in which our present system was formulated. The executive branch must provide leadership and take an active role in the development of a better immigration policy. Serious study, widespread discussion, public educa- tion, interagency coordination, adequate resource allocation, policy analysis, planning, and coopera- tion with state and local levels of government are all needed. B. MAJOR RECOMMENDATIONS The recommendations set forth below do not pre- clude the more specific recommendations contained at the end of individual chapters. Specific chapter recommendations will presumably be implemented as part of the overall follow-up to this report by the Committee in accordance with the major recommendations below. The Committee does not believe any single element among its recommendations can solve the illegal alien problem. It does believe that the cumulative effect of implementing the recommendations which follow will be to slow the flow of illegal aliens significantly and to take major strides toward the development of a more effective immigration policy. - 241 - 1. The issue of illegal immigration merits priority attention and requires Cabinet leadership. Actions to be taken cross many bureaucratic and agency lines and will require continued coordination and direction at the highest level. 2. The executive branch should aggressively pursue the enactment of legislation which relates directly to the illegal alien question and which the executive branch has supported in the past. Such legislative actions include: (a) penalties for employers who knowingly hire aliens not authorized to work; (b) application of the preference system and foreign state limitations to Western Hemis- phere immigration in a manner similar to that regulating Eastern Hemisphere immigra- 47/ tion; (c) thorough revision of the labor certification provisions of the current law so that immi- grants admitted for employment fall within prescribed quotas and individual certifications are eliminated; 47/ P.L. 94-571, signed on October 20, 1976, contains these provisions. This report was written and approved prior to that action. - 242 - (d) advancement of the eligibility date for establishing a record of admission for lawful permanent residence from June 30, 1948 to July 1, 1968; and (e) increased penalties for persons who smuggle or facilitate illegal immigration. 3. The Committee should evaluate the current H-2 or temporary worker program authorized by the INA to determine if it is adequate, both from an administra- tive and statutory standpoint, to meet the legitimate needs of employers for temporary foreign workers. It should further assess the United States experience with the bracero program and the experiences of other nations with guest worker programs. An expanded, government to government foreign worker program should not be sought at this time. However, means of improving the government's responsiveness to employers under current law should be developed if necessary. 4. The agencies administering the INA -- INS and the Department of State -- should receive high priority in the allocation of resources directed at prevention of and screening for illegal entries, management and operational upgrading, and inter-Departmental coor- dination. 5. The Committee is concerned about the large number of illegal aliens already in the United States. The - 243 - Committee believes that massive deportation is both inhumane and impractical. It is expected that the enactment of the legislation described in recommen- dation #2 would permit some illegal aliens to adjust their status and cause many others to decide to leave the United States. In addition, the Committee should evaluate and develop other policy approaches toward those illegal aliens currently in the country. 6. The Department of State should undertake serious, high-priority exchanges, in addition to those underway with Mexico, with governments of the major illegal alien sending countries on the illegal migration issue, visa controls, and U.S. domestic pressures and activity surrounding the illegal alien. U.S. foreign aid and other efforts toward less developed nations should be encouraged, but with greater emphasis on factors that would reduce the pressures that encourage migration, e.g., population plan- ning, rural economic development and labor intensive programs. 7. The Committee and the cognizant federal agencies should initiate and support a broad based research program to determine the nature and scope of various immigration related problems. This must include research within government agencies as well as through contracting with outside individuals and institutions, involvement of other levels of government and consultation with a wide variety of experts in many disciplines. Relevant economic, - 244 - sociological, demographic and labor market data are needed to adequately examine existing policies and update them. 8. The Committee should initiate a thorough re- examination of the basic precepts and operations of current immigration policy with the goal of developing proposals and systems which are based on information developed through careful study and research and widespread discussion among affected interest groups and the general public. - 245 - Bibliography Books, Monographs, Study Reports and Unpublished Papers: Bohning, W. R. and Maillot, D. The Effects of the Employment of Foreign Workers. Paris, France: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 1974. Briggs, Vernon M., Jr. Chicanos and Rural Poverty. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. 1973 Briggs, Vernon M., Jr. Mexican Migration and the U.S. Labor Market, A Mounting Issue for the Seventies. Austin: Center for the Study of Human Resources, The University of Texas, 1974. Briggs, Vernon M., Jr. The Mexico-United States Border: Public Policy and Chicano Economic Welfare. Austin: Center for the Study of Human Resources, The University of Texas, 1974. Bustamante, Jorge A. So-called Wetbacks: The Social Economic and Political Meaning of Immigration to the U.S., Mexico. D. F.: Universidad Nacional de Mexico, 1972. Chiswick, Barry R. "The Effect of Americanization on Earnings," mimeo, July, 1976. Cornelius, Wayne A. and Canedo, Juan Diez, "Rural Change and Emigration: Impact on Mexico and the U.S.," paper presented at American University, Washington, D. C. March 18, 1976. Fragomen, Austin J. The Illegal Alien: Criminal or Economic Refugee? New York: Center for. Migration Studies, 1973. Galarza, Ernesto. Merchants of Labor, The Mexican Bracero Story. Los Angeles: Rosicrucian Press, 1964. Gamio, Manuel. Mexican Immigration to the United States: A Study of Human Migration and Adjustment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1930; reprint ed. with a new introduction by John H. Burma, New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1971. Grebler, Leo. "Mexican Immigration to the United States: The Record and its Implications" Advance Report No. 2, Mexican American Study Project, University of California, 1966. Karkashian, John E. "The Illegal Alien." Paper presented at 18th Session, Senior Seminar in Foreign Policy, Foreign Service Institute, Department of State, Washington, D. C., 1976. - 246 - Lawrence, Loren E. "The Illegal Immigrant to the United States: A Profile of the Characteristics and Techniques and the Impact of His Presence on the Foreign Service." Paper presented at the 16th Session, Senior Seminar in Foreign Policy, Foreign Service Institute, Department of State, Washington, D. C., April 1974. Marshall, Ray "Economic Factors Influencing the International Migration of Workers," paper presented at Weatherhead Foundation, San Antonio, April 15, 1975. Mason, John D. "The Aftermath of the Bracero: A Study of the Economic Impact on the Agricultural Hired Labor Market of Michigan from the Termination of Public Law 78" (unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1969). National Center for the Study of Alien's Rights, "Alien Infinity Study," The University of San Diego School of Law, June, 1976. North, David S. The Border Crossers. Washington: Trans-Century, 1970. Piore, Michael J. "The 'New Immigration' and the Presumptions of Social Policy." Paper presented at the Industrial Relations Research Association, 29 December 1974. Piore, J. "The Labor Market and Manpower Policy Implications of Illegal Immigration," Draft prepared for the National Commission on Manpower Policy, Feb., 1976. Power, Jonathan, "Europe's Army of Immigrants," paper commissioned for International Institute for Environment and Development, 1974. Rungeling, Brian Scott "Impact of the Mexican Labor Commuter on the Apparel Industry of El Paso, Texas," (unpublished Ph. dissertation, University of Kentucky, 1969). Samora, Julian. Los Mojados: The Wetback Story. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1971. Stoddard, Ellwyn R. "Illegal Mexican Labor in the Borderlands: Institutionalized Support of An Unlawful Practice, a paper prepared for presentation at the 70th Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association, Aug. 25-29, 1975. Tomasi, S. M. and Keely, C. B. Whom Have We Welcomed?, New York: Center for Migration Studies, 1975. - 247 - Weaver, Thomas and Downing, Theodore E. eds. Mexican Migration, Tuscon: University of Arizona Press, 1976. ZPG and Immigration: A Discussion Paper. Prepared by the Immigration Committee of Zero Population Growth, 1346 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, D. C., January 1974. Specific Articles: Abrams, Elliott, and Abrams, Franklin S. "Immigration Policy -- Who Gets In and Why?" The Public Interest 38 (Winter 1975), pp. 3-29. Bernsen, Sam "Search and Seizure on the Highway for Immigration Violations: A Survey of the Law," San Diego Law Review, December, 1975, vol. 13, no. 1, pp 69-81. Briggs, Vernon M. Jr., "Illegal Aliens: The Need for a Restrictive Border Policy," Social Science Quarterly, Dec., 1975, vol. 56, no. 3, pp. 447-484. Briggs, Vernon M. Jr., "Illegal Immigration and the American Labor Force," American Behavioral Scientist, Jan/Feb., 1976. vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 351-363. Bustamante, Jorge A. "The Historical Context of Undocumented Mexican Migration to the United States," Aztlan, Chicano Journal of the Social Sciences and Arts, Fall, 1972, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 257-281. Bustamante, Jorge A., "Structural and Ideological Conditions of the Mexican Undocumented Immigration to the United States," American Behavioral Scientist, Jan./Feb., 1976, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 364-376. Corwin, Arthur F. "Mexican-American History: An Assessment." Pacific Historical Review 42 (August 1973) : pp. 269-308. Corwin, Arthur F. "Mexican Emigration History, 1900-1970: Literature and Research." Latin American Research Review 8 (Summer 1973) : pp. 3-24. Dagodag, W. Tim, "Source Regions and Composition of Illegal Mexican Immigration to California" in International Migration Review, Winter, 1975. Davis, Kingsley, "The Migrations of Human Populations" in Scientific American, vol. 231, no. 3, Sept. 1974. - 248 - Ericson, A. S. "Impact of Commuters Across the Mexican Border," Monthly Labor Review, Aug., 1970, pp. 18-27. Fragomen, Austin T., Jr. "Constitutional Rights of Aliens Upon Arrest." International Migration Review 7 (Spring 1973), pp. 67-71. Fragomen, Austin T., Jr. "Searching for Illegal Aliens: The Immigration Service Encounters the Fourth Amendment," San Diego Law Review, December, 1975, vol. 13, no. 1, pp 82-124. Fragomen, Austin T., Jr., and Wenk, Michael G. "Legislative and Judicial Development of Interest." International Migration Review 6 (Winter 1972), pp. 435-440. Garza, Daniel "Tracing the Deadly Tax Drain of Mexican Aliens,": Dallas, August 1974, p. 23. Gorden, Wendell. "A Case for a Less Restrictive Border Policy," Social Science Quarterly, Dec., 1975, vol. 56, no. 3, pp. 485-491. Greene, Sheldon L. "Immigration Law and Rural Poverty -- The Problems of the Illegal Immigrant." Duke Law Review, no. 3 (1969), pp. 475-494. Keely, Charles B. "Effect of the Immigration Act of 1965 on Selected Population Characteristics of Immigrants to the U.S." Demography 8 (May 1971). Keely, Charles B. "The Estimation of the Immigration Component of Population Growth." International Migration Review 8 (Fall 1974), pp. 431-435. Keely, Charles B. "Immigration Composition and Population Policy." Science 185 (16 August 1974), pp. 587-593. Lippman, Leopold. "Guest Workers, Handicapped Workers: Are They the Seed Bed of Conflict" The Social and Rehabilita- tion Record, 1 October 1974, pp. 20-24. Martinez, Vilma S., "Illegal Immigration and the Labor Force" in American Behavioral Scientist, vol. 19, no. 3, Jan./Feb. 1976, pp. 335-350. Ortega, Joe C. "Plight of the Mexican Wetback." American Bar Association Journal 58 (March 1972), pp. 251-254. Portes, Alejandro. "Return of the Wetback." Society, April/May 1974, pp. 40-46. - 249 - Ritterband, Paul. "Law, Policy, and Behavior: Educational Exchange Policy and Student Migration." American Journal of Sociology 76 (July 1970), pp. 71-82. Rizzo, John J. "Alien Welfare Benefits: An Examination of Eligibility Requirements Based on Citizenship." Syracuse Law Review 22 (1971), pp. 1047-1063. Robinson, Dianne. "State Regulation of the Employment of Illegal Aliens: A Constitutional Approach." Southern California Law Review 46 (March 1973) pp. 565-584. Rodino, Jr., Hon. Peter W. "The Impact of Immigration on the American Labor Market." Rutgers Law Review 27 (Winter 1974), pp. 245-274. Velie, Lester, "Poverty at the Border: Mexican Labor Brought in by Greedy U.S. Employers," Readers Digest, 97, August, 1970, pp. 92-97. Westoff, Leslie A. "Should We Pull Up the Gangplank?" The New York Times Magazine, 16 September 1973, p. 15. Williams, Dean L. Some Political and Economic Aspects of Mexican Immigration into the U.S. Since 1941. With Particular Reference to This Immigration into California. San Francisco: R & E Research Associates, 1973. Government Publications and Reports (Published and Unpublished): Congressional Documents: U.S. Congress. House. Amending the Immigration and Nationality Act, and for Other Purposes. (To accompany H.R. 982). House Report No. 93-108. 93d Cong., 1st sess., April 5, 1973. U.S. Congress. House. Immigration and Nationality Act Amend- ments of 1973. (To accompany H.R. 981) House Report No. 93-461. 93d Cong., 1st sess., September 11, 1973. U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Government Operations. Immigration and Naturalization Service Regional Office Operations. Part 1. Hearings before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations, 93d Cong., 1st sess., March 27; April 3 and 10, 1973. U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Government Operations. Immigration and Naturalization Service Regional Office Operations. Part 2. Hearings before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations, 93d Cong., 1st sess., May 18, June 18 and 28, 1973. - 250 - U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Government Operations. Immigration and Naturalization Service Regional Office Opera- tions. Part 3. Hearings before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations, 93d Cong., 1st sess., September 17 and 18, 1973. U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Government Operations. Immigration and Naturalization Service Regional Office Opera- tions. Part 4. Hearings before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations, 93d Cong., 1st sess., November 13 and 14, 1973. U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Government Operations. Immigration and Naturalization Service Regional Office Opera- tions. Part 5. Hearings before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations, 93d Cong., 2d sess., August 13; September 12, 17, 18; and October 9, 1974. U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Government Operations. Interim Report on Immigration and Naturalization Service Regional Office Operations. House Report No. 93-1623. 93d Cong., 2d sess., December 18, 1974. U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Government Operations. Law Enforcement on the Southwest Border. Review of Reorgani- zation Plan No. 2 of 1973 and Related Developments. Hearings before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations, 93d Cong., 2d sess., July 10, 11, 16; and August 14, 1974. U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Government Operations. Law Enforcement on the Southwest Border (Problems of Coordina- tion between Immigration and Naturalization Service and Customs Service). House Report No. 93-1630. 93d Cong., 2d sess., December 18, 1974. U.S. Congress. House. Committee on the Judiciary. Hearings before Subcommittee No. 1 on H.R. 9112, H.R. 15092 and H.R. 17370 to Amend the Immigration and Nationality Act, and for Other Purposes, 91st Cong., 2d sess, July 16, 22, and 29, 1970, August 5 and 6, 1970. U.S. Congress. House. Committee on the Judiciary. Illegal Aliens. Part 1. Hearings before Subcommittee No. 1, 92d Cong., 1st sess., May 5; June 3, 19 and 21, 1971. U.S. Congress. House. Committee on the Judiciary. Illegal Aliens. Part 2. Hearings before Subcommittee No. 1, 92d Cong., 1st sess., June 24, 25; July 9 and 10, 1971. - 251 - U.S. Cong. House. Committee on the Judiciary. Illegal Aliens. Part 3. Hearings before Subcommittee No. 1,92d Cong., 1st sess., October 22 and 23, 1971; January 21, 1972. U.S. Cong. House. Committee on the Judiciary. Illegal Aliens. Part 4. Hearings before Subcommittee No. 1, 92d Cong., 2d sess., March 10 and 11, 1972. U.S. Cong. House. Committee on the Judiciary. Illegal Aliens. Part 5. Hearings before Subcommittee No. 1, 92d Cong., 2d sess., March 22, 23, and 24, 1972. U.S. Cong. House. Committee on the Judiciary. Illegal Aliens: A Review of Hearings Conducted During the 92d Congress (Serial No. 13, Pts. 1-5) by Subcommittee No. 1, 93d Cong., 1st sess, February 1973. U.S. Cong. House. Committee on the Judiciary. Illegal Aliens. (To accompany H.R. 982). Hearings before Subcommittee No. 1, 93d Cong., 1st sess., March 7 and 8, 1973. U.S. Cong. House. Committee on the Judiciary. Western Hemi- sphere Immigration. Hearings before Subcommittee No. 1 on H.R. 981, 93d Cong., 1st sess., March 28; April 12; June 6, 7, 13 and 14, 1973. U.S. Cong. House. Committee on the Judiciary. Review of the Administration of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Hearings before the Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, and International Law, 93d Cong., 1st sess., July 26; September 13, 18, and 20, 1973. U.S. Cong. House. Committee on the Judiciary. Report of the Special Subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary to Review Immigration, Refugee, and Nationality Problems, 93d Cong., 1st sess., December 1973. U.S. Cong. Senate. Committee on Labor and Public Welfare. Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker Powerlessness, Part 4-B, 5-B and 7-B. Hearings before the Subcommittee on Migratory Labor, 91st Cong., 1st and 2nd sess., 1969-1970. U.S. Cong. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary. Immigration 1976. (To accompany S-3074). Hearings before the Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship and International Law, 94th Cong., 2nd sess., 1976. - 252 - U.S. Cong. General Accounting Office. A Single Agency Needed to Manage Port-of-Entry Inspections -- Particularly at U.S. Ports: Report to the Congress by the Comptroller General of the United States. B-114898, Washington, D. C., May 30, 1973. U.S. Cong. General Accounting Office. Aliens Are Illegally Entering the U.S. Mainland Through Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands: Report to the Congress by the Comptroller General of the United States. GGD-76-5, Washington, D.C., September 8, 1975. U.S. Cong. General Accounting Office. Better Controls Needed to Prevent Foreign Students from Violating the Conditions of Their Entry and Stay While in the United States: Report to the Congress by the Comptroller General of the United States. GGD-75-9, Washington, D.C., February 4, 1975. U.S. Cong. General Accounting Office. Immigration -- Need to Assess U.S. Policy: Report to the Congress by the Comptroller General of the United States. GGD-76-101, Washington, D. C., October, 1976. U.S. Cong. General Accounting Office. More Needs to Be Done to Reduce the Number and Adverse Impact of Illegal Aliens in the United States: Report to the Congress by the Comptroller General of the United States. B-125051, Washington, D. C., July 31, 1973. U.S. Cong. General Accounting Office. Need to Reduce Public Expenditures For Newly Arrived Immigrants and Correct Inequity in Current Immigration Law: Report to the Congress by the Comptroller General of the United States. GGD-75-107, Washington, D. C., July 15, 1975. U.S. Cong. General Accounting Office. Needs for Improvement in Management Activities of the Immigration and Naturalization Service: Report to the Congress by the Comptroller General of the United States. B-125051, Washington, D. C., August 14, 1973. U.S. Cong. General Accounting Office. Smugglers, Illicit Documents, and Schemes Are Undermining U.S. Controls Over Immigration: Report to the Congress by the Comptroller General of the United States. GGD-76-83, Washington, D. C. August 30, 1976. - 253 - Executive Department Documents: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Counting The Forgotten: The 1970 Census Count of Persons of Spanish Speaking Background in the United States. Washington, D. C., April 1974. U.S. Commission on Population Growth and the American Future. Population and the American Future. Final Report. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1972. U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census. Census Population, 1970: General Social and Economic Characteristics. Final Report PC (1)-C1, United States Summary, Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census. Selected Characteristics of Persons and Families of Mexican, Puerto Rican, and Other Spanish Origin, Current Population Reports. Series P-20, No. 238. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1972. U.S. Department of Commerce. Economic Development Administration. "Industrial and Employment Potential of the United States-Mexico Border," by Robert R. Nathan Associates, Inc., December 1968. U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Social Security Administration. "Interactions Between Illegal Alien Respondents and the Social Security Tax Collection System: Some Preliminary Findings," by David S. North, July 1976. U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Regional Office VI. "Regional Memorandum," by Howard D. McMahan, Regional Director. Dallas, Texas, November 1973. U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Rehabilita- tion Service, Office of Quality Control Management. Quality Control in AFDC, National Findings, January-June, 1974. Washington, D. C. 1975. U.S. Department of Justice. Immigration and Naturalization Service. Annual Report of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Various issues. U.S. Department of Justice. Immigration and Naturalization Service. "Illegal Aliens Policy Analysis," by I.C.F., Inc. October, 1975. - 254 - U.S. Department of Justice. Immigration and Naturalization Service. "The Gallup Study of Attitudes Towards Illegal Aliens" by The Gallup Organization, Inc., June, 1976. U.S. Department of Justice. Immigration and Naturalization Service. "Fraudulent Entrants Study: A Study of Malafide Applicants for Admission at Selected Airports and Southwest Land Border Ports" (Illegal Alien Study - Part I), September, 1976. U.S. Department of Labor. Manpower Administration. Alien Workers: A Study of the Labor Certification Program, by David S. North. Available from the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22151, August 1971. U.S. Department of Labor. Manpower Administration. "Biblio- graphic Literature on Migrant Seasonal Workers: An Annotated Reference Guide." Prepared by LMC Inc., October 1974. U.S. Department of Labor. Manpower Administration. Farming and Farm Labor, by Paul Sultan and Darryl D. Enos. Available from National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22151, 1974. U.S. Department of Labor. Manpower Administration. Immigrants and The American Labor Market, by David S. North and William G. Weissert. Available from National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22151, April 1973. U.S. Department of Labor. Manpower Administration. "The Legal and Illegal California Farmworker: Some Implications for Unemployment Insurance," by Paul E. Sultan and John M. Virgo, January, 1974. U.S. Department of Labor. Manpower Administration. Illegal Aliens: Their Characteristics and Roles in the U.S. Labor Market, by David S. North and Marion F. Houstoun, 1976. U.S. Department of Labor. California Labor Panel to Secretary of Labor Wirtz, Final Report, Los Angeles, California, December, 1965. U.S. Department of State. Bureau of Security and Consular Affairs. Report of the Visa Office. Various issues. U.S. Select Commission on Western Hemisphere Immigration. Final Report. Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1968. - 255 - U.S. Special Study Group on Illegal Immigrants from Mexico. "A Program for Effective and Humane Action on Illegal Mexican Immigrants." Washington, D.C., January 15, 1973. ("The Cramton Report") Foreign Document: Mexico, Interdepartmental Commission for the Study of the Problem of the Clandestine Emigration of Mexican Workers to the United States of America. "Report on Activities and Recommendations," Tlatelolco, December 14, 1972. (Companion to "The Cramton Report."). State and Local Government Documents: California, Office of the Lieutenant Governor, Migration, 1976. California State Social Welfare Board. "Position Statement: Aliens in California." California: Health and Welfare Agency, Department of Social Welfare, January 1973. California, San Diego County Human Resources Agency. "A Study of the Impact of Illegal Aliens on the County of San Diego in Specific Socioeconomic Areas," Nov., 1975. City of El Paso, Mexico, El Paso Special Commission on Crime, Final Report. Illinois Legislative Investigating Commission. Report to the General Assembly on the Problem of Illegal Aliens in Illinois. Chicago, Illinois, October 1971. Los Angeles Police Department. "Study of Impact of Illegal Aliens on Crime in L.A. : Ramparts Division Case Study." Los Angeles, Ca., September 1974. Texas Department of Community Affairs, "Illegal Juvenile Alien Crime Along the Mexico-United States Borderland," State Youth Secretariat Division, June 1975. Texas Good Neighbor Commission of Texas. Texas Migrant Labor 1973 Annual Report. P.O. Box 12007, Austin, Texas 78711. Washington. Inter-Agency Task Force for Agricultural Workers. "Investigative Study of the Impact of Illegal Aliens on Farmworkers in the State of Washington." Preliminary Report, December 1974. - 256 - Newspaper Articles: Aarons, Leroy F. "Illegal Entrants Flock to U.S.: A New Poverty Class (Part I). The Washington Post, 2 February 1975. Aarons, Leroy F. "Patrol Can't Keep Aliens Out (Part II):" The Washington Post, 3 February 1975. Buder, Leonard. "65,000 Illegal Aliens Reported in City Schools." The New York Times, 12 June 1973. "Carlos Didn't Last Long in the Promised Land." Washington Star-News, 17 November 1974. "Chavez Shifts View of 'Illegals'." The Washington Post, 3 February 1975. Chriss, Nicholas L. "Aliens Are Using Marriage to Gain Admission to U.S." The Washington Post, 14 July 1974. Cruz, Humberto. "About 70,000 Aliens Are Working Illegally in Dade County." Miami News, 8 July 1974. Del Olmo, Frank. "U.S. Refuses to Repay County's Alien Health Bill.' Los Angeles Times, 1974. Farber, M.A. "Million Illegal Aliens in Metropolitan Area (Part I)." The New York Times, 29 December 1974. Farber, M.A. "Unlawful Aliens Use Costly City Services (Part II) " The New York Times, 30 December 1974. Farber, M.A. "Battle Expected on Tighter Laws to Curb Illegal Aliens, (Part III)." The New York Times, 31 December 1974. Holles, Everett R. "Ruling on Mexican Aliens Stirs Chicanos' Job Fears." The New York Times, 2 December 1974. Meyer, Lawrence. "Alien Plan Links Jobs to Citizenship." The Washington Post, 5 February 1975. Meyer, Lawrence. "Aliens Hard to Count." The Washington Post, 2 February 1975. "On Illegal Aliens." El Paso Times, 19 January 1975. - 257 - Satchell, Michael. "Human Tide Cuts Deeply in America: Illegal Aliens and the Economy (Part I) " Washington Star-News, 16 November 1974. Satchell, Michael. "Life in Paradise Spent on the Run (Part II) " Washington Star-News, 17 November 1974. Satchell, Michael. "The Biggest Hole in the Dike (Part III) ." Washington Star-News, 18 November 1974. Satchell, Michael. "Solution 'Simple': Cut Off Jobs (Part IV) ." Washington Star-News, 19 November 1974. Walsh, Denny. "House Panel Estimates U.S. and States Lose $115 Million a Year in Taxes that Illegal Aliens Escape." The New York Times, 13 June 1974. Zeman, Ray. "Refund for Illegal Aliens Medical Care Sought." " Los Angeles Times, 26 June 1974. APPENDIX A* INFORMATION LISTING OF ILLEGAL ALIEN IMPACTS Prepared and submitted by the Immigration and Naturalization Service *See page 125 of the report. IMPACT AREA SOURCE FINDING Balance of Payments Seattle Times, Seattle Washington, About $7 million is sent to Mexico each December 15, 1974. year by illegal aliens in Washington according to a study conducted by the Governor's Interagency Task Force on Agricultural Workers. Balance of Payments Seattle Times, Seattle Washington, Illegal aliens send their earnings home December 15, 1974. to Mexico. Their earnings are equivalent to U.S. workers - i.e., they may earn as much as $5,000 a season. Little gets into the local economy. If the estimate of 5,000 illegals in the State is accurate, and the average may have earned $1,500 in the season, then $7,500,000 of the State's economy may have been affected. Balance of Payments Seattle Times, Seattle Washington, At an average annual wage of about $5,000, December 15, 1974. illegal aliens receive about $75 million from the Illinois employment market. A good portion of their income is sent to their families in Mexico and is perma- nently drained from the Illinois economy. Balance of Payments U.S. Congress. Illegal Aliens, Part 4 At these New York hearings mention is made Hearings before Subcommittee No. 1, of a series of articles on illegals by 92nd Congress, 2nd Session, March 10 the New York Daily News, which estimated and 11, 1972. that illegals send $1.5 billion out of the country annually. Balance of Payments North, David S., "Interactions Between Of 793 illegal aliens who had worked in Illegal Alien Respondents and the the U.S. at least two weeks and had been Social Security Tax Collection System: apprehended by INS, the average monthly GERALD Some Preliminary Findings,' a paper remittance sent to their homeland was $105 prepared for the Social Security Ad- and helped support an average of 4.6 FORD ministration, July 1976. persons. NOTE: The following information is derived from a variety of sources. Most news- paper accounts rely upon information provided by federal, state, and local government agencies. - 1 - IMPACT AREA SOURCE FINDING Country of Origin Cornelius, Wayne A., "Mexican Migration Funds and expertise gained in U.S. have to the United States: The View From on occasion benefitted Mexican communi- Rural Sending Communities, Presented ties; and, in toto, while not improving at the Conference on Mexico and the significantly Mexican conditions, United States: The Next Ten Years, probably kept them from becoming con- School of International Service, the siderably worse. American University, Washington, D.C., March 18-19, 1976. Country of Origin U.S. Congress. House. Illegal Aliens, At the July 9-10 Hearings at E1 Paso the Part 2, Hearings before Subcommittee American Consul General in Juarez No 1, 2nd Congress, 1st Session, testified to the effect tnat illegal June 24, 25; July 9 and 10, 1971. aliens have on the Mexican economy. Country of Origin Portes Alejandro "Return of the Wet- Mexico benefits from the flow of illegals back" Society, April/May 1974, to the U.S. in two ways: It alleviates pp. 40-46. the tensions and costs of the income maldistribution by providing the poor with an alternative and secondly, re- mittances from Mexican immigrants are being sent into the country. 0 - 2 - IMPACT AREA SOURCE FINDING Crime El Paso Special Commission on Crime There is no way of knowing how many of Final Report, City of El Paso, Texas, the average of 70 cars a week stolen in page 39. El Paso cross the border, but it is certainly a substantial percentage. Crime El Paso Special Commission on Crime In a single calendar quarter in 1974, Final Report, City of E1 Paso, Texas, 6,762 illegal aliens were arrested by page 36. the downtown foot patrol for offenses other than illegal entry. Crime Illinois Study on Illegal Aliens, Almost all are young, single male adults Legislative Investigating Commission, or married and unaccompanied by their State of Illinois, 1971. wives and families. This has bred prostitution. Crime M. A. Farber, "Unlawful Aliens Use Half of 210 arrested in 1973 in connection Costly City Services," New York Times, with an international cocaine-smuggling December 30, 1974. operation were illegals living and working in NYC Area; estimated 6-10% of city jails' 7,300 inmates are illegal. No evidence that illegals commit more crime, pro- portionally, than other people. Crime I&NS Western Region, Regional Of 571 foreign-born felony-charged Commissioner's Annual Report, FY 1976, prisoners in Los Angeles County jails, INS Memorandum from Philip H. Smith dated investigators interviewed 20% and found September 3, 1976. that 35% of those were deportable. - 3 - IMPACT AREA SOURCE FINDING Criminal Justice Joint Crime Suppression Task Force - During a special exercise over a 3-day Rampart Area Report. Los Angeles period in 1974, 36.3% of felony arrestees County Policy Department. and 17.3% of misdemeanors arrested in the Rampart area of Los Angeles were illegal aliens, a figure estimated to be dis- proportional to the assumed population by 223 to 391%. Criminal Justice Migration, Office of the Lieutenant In San Diego County 234 illegal alien Governor, State of California, 1976, juveniles were served between June 6, page 53. 1974 and July 21, 1975 at a cost of $370 per person. Total cost $87,048. Criminal Justice Migration, Office of the Lieutenant Estimated cost to probation department in Governor, State of California, 1976, South Central, East Los Angeles, and West page 61. San Fernando Valley offices for 1974 was $269,893.80 for 1902 illegal aliens. Illegals constitute 4.1% of total case load. Criminal Justice Migration, Office of the Lieutenant According to Raul Longoria of Edinburgh, Governor, State of California, 1976, Texas, more than 10,000 incidents were page 53. reported in 1974 in which juvenile illegal aliens were apprehended and charged in violation of state laws. Criminal Justice Illegal Juvenile Alien Crime Along The Charges on apprehended illegal juvenile Mexican-United States Borderland. aliens. Prepared by the State Youth Secretariat Division of the Texas Department of 40.3% - Theft - Petty - Grand Community Affairs, June 19/5. 26.1 - Immigration 21.4 - Burglary 10.5 - Other - 4 - IMPACT AREA SOURCE FINDING Criminal Justice Joint Crime Suppression Task Force - Illegal aliens represent 42.5% of the Rampart Area Report. Los Angeles felony arrests for repressible crime, County Police Department. 37.4% of felony arrests for narcotic/drug offenses, and 38.4% of the arrests in "other" felony category. .A direct correlation does exist between the presence of illegal aliens and the level of criminal activity. ELICTION pepmesu ou unupel ot [ suq not anoissoliqui Ronua* par a Taje" bgas 13" MpoB 9LG CISEQ IM.WGM 101.K bell LUDGE 01 9 PH nebs MAIS NOT COMMUNITY DUE 20019) MSI perua of rue a tuge 2496 of - 5 - 012' TAXI" pack so 115x1.00 FUSA 11AG auger 01. to FSKG psck OL 2600 11110012 2 frigh ou 1116801 VIJGUE 21110 913 9 L6 UGLE for INSVCI VSEV 2003CE LINDING IMPACT AREA SOURCE FINDING Cultural Impact Illinois Study on Illegal Aliens, Since almost all are here for the purpose Legislative Investigating Commission of earning money to take back or send State of Illinois, 1971. back to Mexico, they live under economically depressed conditions that militate against increasing the social well being of the community. Cultural Impact Community Relations Service, Dept. of While not all illegal aliens, dramatic Justice cited in New York Times, April influx of Spanish-speaking, a majority of 9, 1976, page 13. whom are low-income, poorly-educated, young, high fertility rates, has serious implications for social order: increasing number of bilingual and bicultural communities, special demands on educational system, friction between newcomers and settled population. - 6 - IMPACT AREA SOURCE FINDING Drugs U.S. Congress. House. Immigration Chinese illegal aliens were involved ex- and Naturalization Service Regional tensively in the smuggling of Office Operations, Part 4 Hearing heroin from Southeast Asia. before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations, 93rd Congress 1st Session, November 13 and 14, 1973. Drugs Joint Crime Suppression Task Force - Illegal aliens represent a disproportionate Rampart Area Report. Los Angeles involvement in drug and narcotic activity County Police Department. in the Rampart Area. Jase' 01 IUG 28 (WSLCU bb* S2I-2** C* to JU : - 7 - INSYCL VBEV IMPACT AREA SOURCE FINDING Education Buder, Leonard. "65,000 illegal Instruction of illegals costs New York aliens reported in city schools." City $78 million per year, an estimate The New York Times, 12 June 1973. derived from federal figures. One thousand foreign students are enrolled at City University. Although foreign students pay the annual tuition of $900, the actual cost per student is about $2,100 per year. Education California State Social Welfare Board. Brief analysis of the number, cost impact "Position Statement: Aliens in of foreign students on California insti- California." California: Health and tutions of higher learning. Welfare Agency, Department of Social Welfare, January 1973. Education Ortega, Joe C. "Plight of the Mexican Illegal aliens living in the U.S. have very Wetback." American Bar Association few rights. Children of illegals are Journal 58 (March 1972) pp. 251-54. denied education in California where state law requires school superintendents to request documentation of citizenship of children. Education Migration, Office of the Lieutenant Claim for reimbursement as a result Governor, State of California, 1976, of educating nonimmigrant and noncitizen a page 48. pupils in California in 1971-1972 - 4,386,017.49 for 5818 pupils. Education Migration, Office of the Lieutenant The claims for reimbursement for the Governor, State of California, 1976, education of noncitizen children in San page 48. Diego County for the last 5. years have in- creased from $107,000 in 1970-71 to $228,000 in 1974-75. Enrollment has in- creased 41%. - 8 - IMPACT AREA SOURCE FINDING Health North, David S., "Interactions Between Of 793 apprehended illegal aliens who had Illegal Alien Respondents and the been employed in the U.S. for two weeks or Social Security Tax Collection System: longer, 27% reported using hospitals or Some Preliminary Findings," a paper clinics. prepared for the Social Security Administration, July 1976. Health U.S. Congress. House. Illegal Aliens Effect on well fare and medical programs in Part 2, Hearings before Subcommittee Colorado. The Regional Director U.S. DHEW, No. 1, 2nd Congress, 1st Session, and medical doctors with the Colorado Health June 24, 25; July 9 and 10, 1971. Dept. and Migrant Coalition discuss impact illegal aliens have in areas such as residing in hazardous housing, incidence of infectious diseases, low level of immunization, and impact on Colorado and Migrant Health budgets: Health U.S. Congress. House. Illegal Aliens The July 9-10 hearings held in El Paso in- Part 2, Hearings before Subcommittee cluded testimony from U.S. DHEW Regional No. 1, 2nd Congress, 1st Session, Director and representatives of health June 24, 25; July 9 and 10, 1971. and welfare services, concerning impact of illegal aliens upon health and welfare in the border states. Health California State Social Welfare Board. Regards data on impact illegals are having "Position Statement: Aliens in in the state of California tax supported California." California: Health and medical care. Welfare Agency, Department of Social Welfare, January 1973. Health "Un Illegal Aliens" El Paso Times According to County Judge Udell T. Moore, 19 January 1975. El Paso County spent $300,000 for medical care to the children of illegals. - 9 - IMPACT AREA SOURCE FINDING Health Miami Herald, Miami, Florida, May 16, Between November 1974 and May 1975 1975. Jackson Memorial Hospital in Miami, illegal aliens have cost the hospital over $20,000, costs which were passed on to other patients. Health "Taxpayers Hit by Alien Health Care," Los Angeles County Health Department The Bakersfield Californian, October estimated cost of health services to 7, 1974. illegal aliens during 1973-74 fiscal year at $8,153,804. Health Seman, Ray: Refund for Illegal Alien Los Angeles County hospitals seek federal Medical Care Sought." Los Angeles reimbursement for $7 million in medical Times, 26 June 1974. care rendered each year. The county collects only 10% of the costs from illegals; taxpayers pay the remaining $7 million. Health Garzà, Daniel "Tracing the Deadly Tax The illegal alien often brings serious Drain of Mexican Aliens,: Dallas, communicable diseases with him from Mexico, August 1974, pp. 23. yet avoids health officials until he is so sick he is an emergency case. In the mean- time barrio residents and others are exposed. Health U.S. Dept. of HEW. Regional Office Talks about incidence of disease among VI "Regional Memorandum" by Howard D. illegal aliens being one of Region VI McMahan, Regional Director. Dallas, top priorities. Texas, November 1973. I I 10 IMPACT AREA SOURCE FINDING Impact on Illegal Aliens Numerous newspaper articles. Durham Frequent deaths of illegal aliens while Morning Herald, Aug. 22, 1976; New York riding freight trains or being smuggled Times, June 6, 1976, & April 28, 1976. in crowded vans and trucks. Impact on Illegal Aliens New York Times, June 6, 1976, page 26. Bandit gangs prey on Mexican aliens crossing border; in 5 months, 5 killed and scores wounded in 93 reported attacks; probably no more than 20-25% of attacks are reported. Impact on Illegal Aliens Illinois Study on Illegal Aliens, Extortion of money by personnel placement Legislative Investigating Commission officers of industrial plants and by some State of Illinois, 1971. unscrupulous police officials is a particularly obnoxious corruptive practice. Impact on Illegal Aliens U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Discussion at these hearings on the Government Operations. Immigration exploitation of illegal aliens by and Naturalization Service Regional Of- unscrupulous employers. fice Operations. Part 1 Hearings be- fore a subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations, 93rd Congress, 1st session, March 27; April 3 and 10, 1973. Impact on Illegal Aliens Samora Julian. Los Mojados: The l'et- Chapter VI offers a profile of the wetback, back Story. Notre Dame: University talks about the problems of living outside of Notre Dame Press 1971. society and of the exploitation at all levels. - 11 - - IMPACT AREA SOURCE FINDING Labor Gregory, John. "Life in the Barrios, A Chicano-Mexican tensions regarding illegais: Study of Alien Nation.' Los Angeles Some exploitation, some assistance. Times, 5 January 1975. Primary, though anecdotal, data on life- style differences and economic competition between the two. C Labor Holles, Everett R. "Ruling on Mexican The impact of the Supreme Court regarding Aliens Stirs Chicanos' Job Fears." The the right of resident aliens to live in New York Times, 2 December 1974. Mexico and work in the U.S. Labor Washington. Inter-Agency Task Force A composite of estimates from public service for Agricul tural Workers. "Investiga- officials indicated the presence of 5,000 or tive Study of the Impact of Illegal more illegal aliens working in agricul ture Aliens on Farmworkers in the State of during a peak period in 1974, most of whom Washington." Preliminary Report, were concentrated in the Yakima Valley. December 1974. There was an indication that most of these workers were taking jobs away from local and U.S. migrant workers. illegals re- ceived an estimated $7.5 million in wages which is reported by Post Offices to be sent to Mexico. Labor Texas Good Neighbor Commission of Texas. Talks about impact of illegal aliens on Texas Migrant Labor 1973, Annual Report. farm job market. P.O. Box 12007, Austin, Texas 78711. Labor Illinois Legislative Investigating Types of employment & places of employment Commission. "Report to the General of illegals - procurement of social Assembly on the Problems of Illegal security cards by illegals. Aliens in Illinois." Chicago, Illinois, October 1971. Labor U.S. Dept. of Labor. Manpower Admin. Study on the direction in the change of un- "The Legal and Illegal California Farm- employment insurance costs in California worker: Some Implications for Unem- should farmworkers become eligible. Dis- ployment Insurance," by Paul E. Sultan cusses effects illegal aliens would have on and John M. Virgo, January 1974. unemployment insurance. Also considers the extent, methods, and impacts of illegal manpower flows into California. See Chapters VI, VIII, IX, X. 12 IMPACT AREA SOURCE FINDING Labor U.S. Dept. of Labor. Manpower Admin. Analysis of the patterns and barriers of Farming and Farm Labor, by Paul Sultan the occupational and geographic mobility OI and Darryl D. Evans, Available from farm laborers in California. Presence, National Technical Information Service, characteristics and role of illegals in Springfield, Va. 22151, 1974. farm-nonfarm employment is considered in Chapters II V1I and VIII. Labor U.S. Dept. of Labor. Manpower Admin. Study of the flow, magnitude and The Border Crossers: People who Live in characteristics of commuting Mexican Mexico and work in the United States, workers and their impact on the resident by David S. North. Available from the American Work Force in the Southwest, where National Technical Information Service, wages are generally low and unemployment Springfield, Virginia 22151, April 1970. high. The origins of the commutation practice, the controversies it has created, the role played by the border crossers in a variety of federal programs and the presence of illegals are also discussed. Labor U.S. Dept of Commerce. Manpower Admin. Included in the bibliography on migrant "Bibliographic Literature on Migrant workers are several references to the Seasonal Workers: An Annotated Re- presence and impact of illegal aliens in ference Guide.' Prepared by LMC Inc. the farm labor force. October 19/4. Labor U.S. Dept. of Commerce. Economic De- Report states that "the large inflow of velopment Admin. "Industrial and Em- legal and illegal Mexican immigrants, to- ployment Potential of the United States- gether with commuters who live in Mexico Mexican Border," by Robert R. Nathan but work in the United States, undoubtedly Associates, Inc. December 1968. contributes to disruption of the labor market and to poverty problems on the U.S. side of the border. Labor U.S. Congress. House. Illegal Aliens, Testimony at these New York hearings from Part 4, Hearings before Subcommittee No. the DOL Regional Manpower Administrator 1, 92nd Congress, 2nd Session, March 10 affirmed the belief that illegal aliens and 11, 1972. seriously depress wages and impair working conditions. - 13 - IMPACT AREA SOURCE FINDING Labor U.S. Congress. House. Illegal Aliens The July 9-10 hearings held in El Paso Part 2 Hearings before Subcommittee included testimony and statements from No. 1, 2nd Congress, 1st Session, June DOL Regional Manpower Director, re- 24, 25; July 9 and 10, 1971. presentatives of local labor unions, em- ployment agencies, and employers con- cerning impact that illegals have upon un- employment, their wages and the question of labor certification. Labor U.S. Dept. of Labor. Manpower Admin. A study of that part of the U.S. immigrant Alien Workers: A Study of the Labor screening process administered by the Certification Program, by David S. Dept. of Labor's labor certification. The North. Available from the National report provides a history of the program, Technical Information Service, Spring- describes its operation, and analyses its field, Virginia 22151, August 1971. impact on the labor market. Labor Population and the American Future, Recommends that Congress immediately con- Final Report. Washington, D.C.: sider passing legislation imposing civil Government Printing Office, 19/2. and criminal sanctions on employers of illegal border crossers or aliens in an immigration status in which employment is not authorized. Labor Samora, Julian, and Bustamante, Jorge. Mexican immigration and American labor "Mexican Immigration and American demands. Labor Demands." Paper presented at the Center for Migration Studies, Brooklyn College, New York 1970. Reprinted in U.S. Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Hearings of the Sub- committee on Migratory Labor, 91st Congress, 1st and 2nd Session, Part 7- 13 pp. 4783-4821. Labor U.S. Senate Committee on Labor & Focus on the presence and impact of Public Welfare, Migrant and Seasonal illegal aliens Part 4-13 Farmworker legal Farmworker Powerlessness, Part I-8C Problems; Part 5-13 Border Commuter Labor Hearings before the Subcommittee on Problems; Part 7-13 Manpower and Economic Migratory Labor 91st Congress 1st and Problems. 2nd Session, 1969-1970. - 14 - IMPACT AREA SOURCE FINDING Labor Miami News, Miami, Florida August 26, An estimated 70,000 aliens are working 1974. illegally in Dade County while 43,000 citizens are out of work. Labor Migration, Office of the Lieutenant A study prepared by the San Diego County Governor, State of California, 1976, Human Resource Agency in November 1975 page 29. estimated that approx. 9,000 illegal aliens hold jobs in San Diego County and earn wages totaling $34,560,000. 63% earn less than $2.50 per hour. Average wage was $2.00. Labor Migration, Office of the Lieutenant The Report estimates that over 150,000 Governor, State of California, 1976, illegal Mexican aliens are employed in the page 29. city of Los Angeles alone. If accurate, there are more Mexicans employed in LOS Angeles than in any city in Mexico except Mexico City and Guadalajara. Labor Lippman, Leopold. "Guest Workers, The use of the guest worker in Europe and Handicapped Workers: Are they the the illegal worker in the U.S. who are Seed bed of Conflict" The Social willing to perform unpleasant work for low and Rehabilitation Record 1 (October pay, has substantial - and negative im- 1974): 20-24. plications for the prospects of employment for handicapped and rehabilitated workers. Labor Mexican Intersecretariat Study. 46.8% illegal aliens found work in the U.S. Mexico 1974. 53.2% never did, majority in agriculture, average number of days worked in U.S. was 62. Labor Washington. Inter-Agency Task Force There were overwhelming indications that for Agricultural Workers. "Investiga- jobs were being taken from local and U.S. tive Study of the Impact of Illegal migrant workers by illegals, which caused Aliens on Farmworkers in the State of them economic stress. Washington." Preliminary Report, December 1974. - 15 - IMPACT AREA SOURCE FINDING Labor Stoddard, Ellwyn R. "Illegal Mexican According to Cesar Chavez, a mass of un- Labor in the Borderlands: Institu- employed Mexican Nationals available to tionalized Support of an Unlawful the American employer would completely Practice,: a paper prepared for undermine Chicanos in their tactics of presentation at the 70th Annual Meeting organized labor bargaining. of the American Sociological Associa- tion, August 25-29, 1975. Labor Illinois Study on Illegal Aliens Conservatively, 15,000 jobs now held by Community Relations Service, Dept. of Mexican illegals deprive employment to Illinois, 1971. legally admitted aliens and United States citizens residing in Illinois. This situation aggravates the State's unemploy- ment problem and causes collateral, un- favorable economic ramifications. Labor U.S. Congress. House. Committee on At these hearings Congress talks about the Government Operations. Immigration and involvement of illegal aliens in government Naturalization Service Regional Office sponsored programs such as OEO. Operation, Part 1, Hearings before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations, 93rd Congress, 1st Session, March 27, April 3 and 10, 1973. Labor U.S. Congress. House. Illegal Aliens, At the January 21 Detroit hearings a re- Part 3, Hearings before Subcommittee presentative of the local Veterans of No. 1. 92nd Congress 1st Session, Foreign Wars spoke on the effect of illegal October 22 and 23, 1971; January 21, aliens upon veteran's opportunities for 1972. employment in the area. - 16 - IMPACT AREA SOURCE FINDING Labor North, David S., "Interactions Be- The average hourly wage of 793 apprehended tween Illegal Alien Respondents and illegal aliens who had worked in the U.S. the Social Security Tax Collection at least two weeks was $2.71. The lowest System: Some Preliminary Findings," a paid respondents earned $2.34 per hour as paper prepared for the Social Security compared to 84.08 for the highest paid. Administration, July 1976. Labor North, David S., "Interactions Be- Of 793 apprehended illegal aliens who had tween Illegal Alien Respondents and worked in the U.S. for 2 weeks or longer the Social Security Tax Collection only 16% had joined a labor union. System: Some Preliminary Findings,' a paper prepared for the Social Security Administration, July 1976. Labor U.S. Congress. House. Illegal Aliens DOL Denver Regional Manpower Administration, Part 2, Hearings before Subcommittee Wage and Hour Div. Asst. Area Director, and No. 1. 2nd Congress, 1st Session, June Colorado State Representatives testified 24, 25; July 9 and 10, 1971. about impact illegal aliens have on labor problems (including violation of minimum wage laws), impact of illegals on urban as well as rural employment. Karkashian, John E., "The Illegal Alien" Labor unpublished paper for the Senior Seminar 30% apprehended in 1975 were employed and in Foreign Policy Dept of State, 1976. many earning above minimum wage. Labor Cornelius, Wayne A., "Mexican Migra- At least in the agricultural sector, the tion to the United States: The View principal impact seems to be the depression from Rural Sending Communities, a of wage scales for certain types of un- paper presented at the conference on skilled jobs, rather than displacement of Mexico and the United States: The native Americans from them. They do, how- Next Ten Years, School of Interna- ever, complete directly for certain types tional Service, The American University of non-agricultural jobs, particularly in Washington, D.C. March 18-19, 1976. factories and in the construction industry; but the degree of competition varies con- siderably among job categories and aliens are frequently severely handicapped by low skill levels, low levels of formal education, and lack of facility in the English language. - 17 - IMPACT AREA SOURCE FINDING Local Economy U.S. Congress. House. Illegal Aliens The October 22-23 Chicago hearings con- Part 3, Hearings before Subcommittee cerned the impact that an indeterminate No. 1 92nd Congress, 1st Session, number of illegals would have on the urban October 22 and 23, 1971; January 21, labor market, unemployment, and living 1972. conditions of Mexican Americans in the Chicago area. Local Economy Briggs, Vernon M. Jr. Chicanos and A study on the adverse effects of the Rural Poverty, Baltimore: The John Southwest rural economy upon Chicanos, Hopkins University Press, 1973. including considerable discussion of the number, characteristics and impact of illegal Mexican aliens. Local Economy Portes, Alejandro "Return of the Wet- In the U.S. only the poor pay the price of back" Society, April/May 1974, illegal immigration: U.S. employers pp. 40-46. benefit from the existence of this pool of abundant cheap labor. Local Economy Velie, Lester. "Poverty at the Border: This article describes the adverse economic Mexican Labor Brought in by Greedy U.S. problems created for the American farm- Employers.: Readers Digest 97 (August worker by the influx of green card commuters 1970) 92-7. and border crossers. Local Economy Briggs, Vernon M. Jr. "The Mexico - This study describes the history of illegal United States Border: Public Policy Mexican immigration to the U.S. and recent and Chicano Economic Welfare.' Austin: attempts to control it through legislation. Center for the study of Human Resources, The author contends that a tight border the University of Texas, 1974. policy is an essential component to any public effort to improve Chicano economic welfare. Local Economy Greene, Sheldon L. "Immigration Law In 1966 domestic farmworkers wages were and Rural Poverty - The Problems of the under half the average prevailing wage in Illegal Immigrant, Duke Law Review, No. industrial employment. Efforts to unionize 3 (1969) 475-94. farmworkers failed due to a large influx of inexpensive nonresident Mexican labor. - 18 - IMPACT AREA SOURCE FINDING Social Security North, David S., "Interactions Between Of 793 apprehended illegal aliens who had Illegal Alien Respondents and the been employed in the U.S. two weeks or Social Security Tax Collection System: longer, 77% reported they had social Some Preliminary Findings," a paper security taxes withheld from their pay. prepared for the Social Security Ad- ministration, July 1976. Social Security U.S. Congress. House. Immigration and Representatives from DHEW testified in these Naturalization Service Regional Office hearings on the extent to which illegals are Operations, Part 4 Hearing before a receiving benefits under social security Subcommittee of the Committee on and other programs administered or super- Government Operations, 93rd Congress, vised by DHEW. 1st Session, November 13 and 14, 19/3. Social Security U.S. Dept of HEW, Regional Office VI Regional Director of HEW Region VI talked "Regional Memorandum," by Howard D. about use of social security card as a McMahan, Regional Director. Dallas, device for identifying persons who are Texas, November 1973. entitled to work and also identifying illegal aliens. This measure as a means to combating unemployment created by illegals. Social Security North, David S., "Interactions Between Three-quarters interviewed said their last Illegal Alien Respondents and the employer had deducted social security con- Social Security Tax Collection System: tributions. The pattern was uneven, how- Some Preliminary Findings," a paper ever. The lowest rate was reported in the prepared for the Social Security Ad- 23 counties adjoining the U.S. -Mexico ministration, July 1976. border, where only 27.9% of the respondents reported deductions. - 19 - - IMPACT AREA SOURCE FINDING Taxes Migration, Office of the Lieutenant San Diego County estimates that $6,768,000 Governor, State of California, 1976, in total taxes are lost through the page 30. illegal aliens employed in the county. Taxes Migration, Office of the Lieutenant Estimates of earnings and taxes paid based Governor, State of California, 1976, on two assumptions of number of illegal page 31. aliens working. Assumption 1 Assumption 2 $24,840 Number $276,000 123,000,000 Earnings 1,000,000,000 8,200,000 Fed. In- 92,000,000 come Tax 3,400,000 Property 38,000,000 Tax 1,900,000 S&L 26,200,000 1,300,000 Gasoline 15,000,000 Taxes Illinois Study on Illegal Aliens, Of the 190 arrested illegal Mexican aliens Legislative Investigating Commission, who were spot-checked, 114 failed to file State of Illinois, 1971. any State income tax returns. Taxes Illinois Study on Illegal Aliens, Apprehended illegal Mexican aliens Legislative Investigating Commission, frequently claim up to 10-12 dependents State of Illinois, 1971. each on their Federal and State income tax withholding forms in order to increase their take-home pay. Taxes North, David S., "Interactions Betwees Of 793 apprehended illegal aliens who had Illegal Alien Respondents and the been employed in the U.S. for two weeks Social Security Tax Collection System: or longer, 73% reported having income taxes Some Preliminary Findings," a paper withheld from their pay. prepared for the Social Security Ad- ministration, July 1976. - 20 - IMPACT AREA SOURCE FINDING Taxes Walsh, Denny. "House Panel estimates House panel estimates U.S. and states lose U.S. and States lose $115 million a $115 million a year in taxes that illegal year in taxes that illegal Aliens aliens escape. Escape." The New York Times, 13 June Karkashian, John E., "The Illegal Alien", Taxes unpublished paper for the Senior Seminar25% of employed illegal aliens receive in Foreign Policy, Dept. of State, pay in cash and pay no Federal, State, 1976. or city taxes. Taxes Cornelius, Wayne A., "Mexican Migration Nearly all paid social security, about to the United States: The View from half had personal income taxes withheld, Rural Sending Communities," a paper some paid property taxes. presented at the Conference on Mexico and the United States: The Next Ten Years, School of International Service, the American University, Washington, D.C., March 18-19, 1976. Taxes U.S. Congress. House. Interim Report Based on the 1973 series of hearings held on Immigration and Naturalization by the Subcommittee on Legal and Monetary Service Regional Office Operations. Affairs and two GAO reports on the INS House Report No. 93-1623, 93rd Congress relays findings on such issues as illegal 2nd Session, December 18, 1974. aliens and unpaid taxes. - 21 - IMPACT AREA SOURCE FINDING Welfare North, David S., "Interactions Between Of 793 apprehended illegal aliens who had Illegal Alien Respondents and the been employed in the U.S. for two weeks or Social Security Tax Collection System: longer, 4% collected one or more weeks of Some Preliminary Findings," a paper unemployment insurance, 1% participated in prepared for the Social Security Ad- U.S. funded job training programs, 1% ministration, July 1976. secured food stamps, and 0.5% secured welfare payments. Welfare Washington. Inter-Agency Task Force There is no indication that the presence for Agricultural Workers. "Investiga- of illegal aliens has caused an increase tive Study of the Impact of Illegal in demand for public welfare services ex- Aliens on Farmworkers in the State of cept in food stamps andmedical services. Washington." Preliminary Report, December 1974. Welfare Cornelius, Wayne A., "Mexican Migration 3 of 30 collected unemployment insurance; to the United States: The View from none ever received free medical care, food Rural Sending Communities," a paper stamps, or welfare benefits. presented at the Conference on Mexico and the United States: The Next Ten Years, School of International Service, The American University, Washington, D.C., March 18-19, 19/6. 4 Welfare New York Times, June 14, 1976, page 35. NYC Human Resources uncovered "marriages of convenience;" removal of 736 persons, including 103 aliens; monthly savings of $76,500. Welfare Quality Control Study on AFDC by In a 1975 study by SRS, .036% of a re- Social Rehabilitation Service. presentative sample of AFDC recipients were found to be illegal aliens. Total cost of illegal aliens on welfare projected to be $3.8 million per year. - 22 - APPENDIX B TASK FORCE MEMBERS Immigration Law and Policy task force Chair: Leonard F. Chapman, INS Members: Craig A. Barrington, DOL William W. Fee, OMB Cornelius D. Scully, DOS Law Enforcement task force Chair: James F. Greene, INS Members: Malcolm E. Arnold, OMB Mrs. Dorothy Come, DOL Walter J. Gorman, DOT/IRS Vernon B. Hann, DOT/CS Gilbert G. Pompa, DOJ/CRS Thomas C. Parrott, HEW/SSA Ernest B. Dane, DOS Social and Community Impact task force Chair: Victor H. Vazquez, HEW Members: Meyer Zitter, Daniel Levine, CENSUS Orval Kerchner, DOA Phil Hanna, OMB Gil Pompa, DOJ/CRS Economic and Labor Market Impact task force Chair: Abraham Weiss, DOL Members: David T. Hulett, OMB William C. Motes, DOA Leslie W. Small, DOC Ross Sommers, DOT/IRS Foreign Relations task force* Chair: William H. Luers, DOS Members: James B. Clawson, DOT William C. Motes, DOA James M. Ravlin, DOC * Also known as the Inter Agency Committee on Mexican Migration to the U.S. which had been previously constituted pursuant to meetings between President Ford and President Echeverria of Mexico in 1974. The scope of its activities as originally defined has been broadened for purposes of the Domestic Council Committee work. - 2 - Herbert N. Blackman, DOL Victor Vazquez, HEW James F. Greene, INS Mary Brownell, NSC Richard D. Parsons, DC Loren E. Lawrence, DOS John T. Dreyfuss, DOS Abbreviations CRS - Community Relations Service CS - Customs Service DC - Domestic Council DOA - Department of Agriculture DOC - Department of Commerce DOJ - Department of Justice DOL - Department of Labor DOS - Department of State DOT - Department of Treasury HEW - Department of Health, Education and Welfare INS - Immigration and Naturalization Service IRS - Internal Revenue Service NSC - National Security Council OMB - Office of Management and Budget SSA - Social Security Administration DOJ-1976-12 Illegal Aliens UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE PLEASE ADDRESS REPLY TO WASHINGTON, D.C. 20536 CO 1326-P OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER DEC 2 9 1976 AND REFER TO THIS FILE NO. Dear Mr. Parsons: As part of the major Illegal Alien Study effort, I&NS has recently completed the Fraudulent Entrants Study which was designed to determine the flow of illegal aliens entering through the ports of entry with counterfeit or altered alien or citizen documents, borrowed or stolen valid documents, false verbal claims to United States citizenship, or valid documents the terms of which the bearer intended to violate. The study, which was undertaken between September 1975 and February 1976, was conducted along a statistically defensible design by two teams of four Immigration Inspectors each at the ten largest international air- ports and the twelve largest Southwest border land ports of entry. Major findings of the study include: FRAUDULENT DOCUMENTS INTERCEPTED (This category includes aliens with counterfeit or altered alien documents or who were impostors presenting valid cards along the Southwest border). The results of the Fraudulent Entrants Study indicate that at least 14 times the routinely detected number of aliens with fraudulent documents successfully enter through Southwest border ports of entry. An estimated 145,000 aliens with fraudulent documents are successfully entering the United States through Southwest border ports each year. FORD is LIBRARY GERALD FALSE CLAIMS TO U.S. CITIZENSHIP The results of the Fraudulent Entrants Study indicate that at least 10 times the routinely detected number of aliens falsely claiming U.S. citizenship are entering at Southwest border ports of entry. An estimated 103,000 aliens falsely claiming to be U.S. citizens are successfully entering the United States through Southwest border ports each year. ALIENS VIOLATING THE TERMS OF THEIR ADMISSION WITH BORDER CROSSING CARDS The results of the Fraudulent Entrants Study indicate that at least 13 times the routinely detected number of aliens entering with border crossing cards and subsequently becoming illegal once they are in the United States are being admitted at Southwest border ports of entry. An estimated 205,000 aliens are successfully entering the United States each year through Southwest border ports by entering with a valid border crossing card and subsequently working or otherwise violating the terms of their temporary admission. The results of the Fraudulent Entrants Study indicate that at least 14 times the routinely detected number of inadmissible aliens are successfully entering the United States through major airports. FORD is LIBRARY GERALD An estimated 50,000 aliens for whom it can be determined at entry intend to work or become illegal through other means after entry with a valid visitor or student visa, or who have fraudulent documents, or who make false claims to U.S. citizenship are successfully entering the United States through the major airports each year. This figure does not include the thousands of visitors and students who enter legally and subsequently de- cide to remain illegally in the United States. Based on these data, there are more than one-half million illegal entries into the United States each year through ports of entry. This number compares with the 44,328 aliens who awere denied admission during 1975 because they were attempting entry with counterfeit or altered alien or citizen documents as impostors, by false verbal claims to U.S. citizenship, or valid documents the terms of which the bearer intended to violate. An additional 750,000 aliens who were determined to be inadmissible for other reasons were also denied entry during FY 1975. Aliens in these other categories were not included in the Fraudulent Entrants Study, however. The Fraudulent Entrants Study indicates, for international airports and Southern land border ports, the dimensions of the illegal alien influx. To achieve a denial rate that is far closer to the total number of illegal aliens entering through the ports, I have made prevention, both at the ports of entry and between them, the Service's top priority. I am enclosing for your interest a copy of this first completed part of the Illegal Alien Study. As the other parts of this major effort become avail- able, they will also be forwarded to you. Please call me if you would like additional copies of the Fraudulent Entrants Study or if I can answer any questions you may have about the Study. Sincerely, L. F. Chapman, Jr. Commissioner Honorable Richard D. Parsons Assistant Director and Counsel Domestic Council The White House Washington, D.C. 20500

Document source description

This file contains materials regarding the Domestic Council Committee on Illegal Aliens.

Page data

Page
1
Source index
0
Type
document
Media ID
a2be6120689dd43f
Size
unknown

Document data

ID
16988027
Core
doc
Type
document
DTO data 
{
    "id": "16988027",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/16988027",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Illegal Aliens (3)",
    "description": "This file contains materials regarding the Domestic Council Committee on Illegal Aliens.",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/16988027",
    "collections": [
        "James M. Cannon Files (Ford Administration)",
        "James Cannon's Issues Files"
    ],
    "subjects": [
        "Illegal aliens"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0039/635863/16988027.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0039/635863/16988027.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0039/635863/16988027.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

Context sent to Scholar

Document identity 
{
    "localId": "16988027",
    "label": "Illegal Aliens (3)",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/16988027"
}
Document source metadata 
{
    "id": "16988027",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/16988027",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Illegal Aliens (3)",
    "description": "This file contains materials regarding the Domestic Council Committee on Illegal Aliens.",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/16988027",
    "collections": [
        "James M. Cannon Files (Ford Administration)",
        "James Cannon's Issues Files"
    ],
    "subjects": [
        "Illegal aliens"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0039/635863/16988027.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0039/635863/16988027.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0039/635863/16988027.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}
Document source extras 
{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/16988027",
    "naId": 16988027,
    "coverageEndDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1976-12-31",
        "month": 12,
        "year": 1976
    },
    "coverageStartDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1975-01-01",
        "month": 1,
        "year": 1975
    },
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}
Page context 
{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0039/635863/16988027.pdf",
    "mediaId": "a2be6120689dd43f",
    "ocrText": "The original documents are located in Box 18, folder \"Illegal Aliens (3)\" of the James M.\nCannon Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nCopyright Notice\nThe copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of\nphotocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald Ford donated to the United\nStates of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.\nWorks prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public\ndomain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to\nremain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid\ncopyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nDigitized from Box 18 of the James M. Cannon Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library\nPRELIMINARY REPORT\nDOMESTIC COUNCIL COMMITTEE\nON ILLEGAL ALIENS\nDECEMBER 1976\nFORD & LIBRARY GERALD\no\nV\nBe\nPRELIMINARY REPORT\nDomestic Council Committee on Illegal Aliens\nDecember, 1976\nDOMESTIC COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON ILLEGAL ALIENS\nChairman: Edward H. Levi, Attorney General, Department of Justice\nCommittee Members:\nSecretary of Agriculture\nSecretary of Commerce\nSecretary of Health, Education and Welfare\nSecretary of Labor\nSecretary of State\nSecretary of the Treasury\nDirector, Office of Management and Budget\nDirector, Domestic Council\nSpecial Assistant to the President for Public Liaison\nSteering Committee: *\nLeonard F. Chapman, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturaliza-\ntion Service, Immigration Law and Policy task force.\nBarry R. Chiswick, Senior Staff Member, Council of Economic\nAdvisers, Technical Adviser.\nJames F. Greene, Deputy Commissioner, Immigration and Naturali-\nzation Service, Law Enforcement task force.\nWilliam F. Luers, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Inter-American\nAffairs, Department of State, Foreign Relations task force\nRichard F. Parsons, Associate Director, Domestic Council\nVictor Vazquez, Director, Office of Spanish Surnamed\nAmericans, Department of Health, Education and Welfare,\nSocial and Community Impact task force\nJoyce Walker, Deputy Associate Director, Office of Management\nand Budget\nAbraham Weiss, Assistant Secretary for Policy, Evaluation and\nResearch, Department of Labor, Economic and Labor Market\nImpact task force\nExecutive Director: Doris M. Meissner, Department of Justice\nStaff Assistance:\nJohn Chapman, Department of Health, Education and Welfare\nNorbert J. Krieg, Department of State\nJohn Nahan, Immigration and Naturalization Service\nJerome Staller, Department of Labor\nMichael Wenk, Department of Justice\n* The Steering Committee is composed of the five task force\nchairmen, the Domestic Council, the Office of Management and\nBudget and the Council of Economic Advisers which acts as\ntechnical adviser. A complete listing of task force members\nand their agency affiliations appears as Appendix B to this\nreport.\nPreliminary Report\nDomestic Council Committee on Illegal Aliens\nTable of Contents\nPage\nExecutive Summary\nV\nIntroduction\n1\nChapter I - United States Immigration Law\nFORD\nand Policy\n6\nA. Historical Review\n6\nLIBRARY\nPeriod of Unrestricted Immigration\n6\nPeriod of Qualitative Controls\n7\nPeriod of Qualitative and Quantitative\nControls\n8\nB. Current Immigration Law\n11\n1965 Amendments\n12\nWorker Importation Provisions\n18\nC. Immigration Policies of Other Nations\n26\nCanada\n28\nAustralia\n29\nD. Conclusions and Recommendations\n32\nChapter II - Illegal Immigration: The Global Picture 35\nA. Who Wants to Come? - Immigration to the U.S.35\nWestern Hemisphere\n35\nEastern Hemisphere\n37\nB. Illegal Alien Source Countries\n39\nInternational Push-Pull\n40\nThe Migration Phenomenon\n47\nC. Mexico and the United States - A Bilateral\nApproach\n52\nU.S. -Mexico Discussions\n55\nOther Countries\n56\nD.\nCompeting Foreign Relations Priorities\n58\nStrict Visa Issuance Controls\n58\nTourism\n59\nE.\nConclusions and Recommendations\n62\ni\nPage\nChapter III - Law Enforcement\n66\nA.\nBackground\n66\nMexico\n66\nThe Bracero Program\n69\nOperation Wetback\n70\nThe Contemporary Problem\n71\nOther Countries\n74\nB.\nPresent Enforcement System\n76\nAuthority\n77\nTactics and Procedures\n78\nCourt Decisions\n84\nVisa Screening\n87\nC.\nInteragency Cooperation\n89\n1972 Social Security Amendments\n89\nDepartment of State\n96\n1.\nPolicy\n98\n2.\nOperations\n99\n3.\nJustice/State Cooperation\n100\n4.\nActions Within Countries\n101\nInternal Revenue Service\n102\n1.\nApprehended Illegal Aliens\n90-Day Test\n102\n2.\nEmployers of Illegal Aliens\n104\nDepartment of Labor\n105\nInternal Actions: INS\n107\nD.\nDisincentives\n110\n1.\nSanctions on Employers\n111\n2.\nCombating Dilatory Tactics\n116\n3.\nSanctions on Illegal Aliens\n118\n4.\nDenying Social Benefits\n119\n5.\nEnhancing Enforcement\n120\n6.\nChanges Having an Indirect\nImpact\n121\nE.\nConclusions and Recommendations\n122\nChapter IV - The Illegal Alien: A Soft Portrait\n124\nA. Data Deficiencies\n124\nB.\nDefinitions\n131\nC.\nPersonal Characteristics\n132\nD. Characteristics of Entry\n142\nE.\nCharacteristics of Residence\n145\nii\nPage\nF.\nCharacteristics of Work Place\n148\nG. Use of Services\n149\nH.\nContributions to the Tax Base\n151\nI. Summary\n152\nChapter V - Domestic Impact of Illegal Aliens\n154\nThe Issues of Employment and Earnings\n154\nA. Hypotheses\n155\nGNP and Relative Incomes\n155\nUnemployment and Job Vacancies\n159\nTaxes and Social Services\n161\nAdditional Hypotheses\n162\nB. Demographic Characteristics of Legal\nand Illegal Immigrants\n164\nC.\nThe Impact\n170\nEarnings of Immigrants\n171\nBracero Program\n178\nEuropean Guest Workers\n181\nD. Summary and Conclusion\n185\nChapter VI - Illegal Immigration: Social Issues\n188\nA. Settlement Patterns of Migrants\n188\nB. The Welfare Issue\n192\nGeneral Assistance\n194\nSupplementary Security Income\n195\nMedicaid\n195\nAid to Families with Dependent\nChildren\n196\nFood Stamps\n196\nSocial Security\n197\nUnemployment Insurance\n198\nC.\nSocial and Community Impact\n201\nPopulation Growth\n201\nINS Enforcement\n205\nAliens' Rights Organizations\n206\nAnti-Alien Sentiment\n209\nFederal-State-Local Relations\n211\nD.\nConclusions and Recommendations\n214\niii\nPage\nChapter VII - Dilemmas for the Future\n217\nA.\nControl\n218\nB.\nInformation\n221\nC.\nForeign Policy\n224\nD.\nGrowth\n227\nE.\nResearch Recommendations\n229\nChapter VIII - Conclusions and Major\nRecommendations\n235\nA.\nConclusions\n235\nB.\nMajor Recommendations\n240\nBibliography\n245\nAppendices\nAppendix A - Information Listing of Illegal\nAlien Impacts\nAppendix B - Task Force Members\niv\nPreliminary Report\nDomestic Council Committee on Illegal Aliens\nExecutive Summary\nIntroduction\nApprehensions of illegal aliens each year are almost\ndouble the number of people who enter the United States legally.\nIllegal aliens, traditionally from Mexico and concentrated\nin the Southwest, are from many nations and are found in\nmany areas of the country. The Domestic Council committee\nwas established to undertake a comprehensive review of\nthe issue and its implications. This preliminary report\nprovides an overview of the policy questions, assesses\ncurrent programs and knowledge and presents recommendations\nfor further action.\nChapter I - U.S. Immigration Law and Policy\nDuring the early years of our history immigration was\nunrestricted. In the late 1800's certain classes, such as\nconvicts, or national groups, such as Chinese, were excluded.\nIn 1921 numerical limits were introduced based on the concept\nof national origin quotas. A major recodification in 1952\nestablished three basic premises for immigration: family\nreunification, protection of jobs for the domestic labor force,\nand control of alien visitors. However the national origin\nV\nquota was maintained until 1965 when amendments replaced\nit with numerical hemispheric ceilings and introduced a\nfourth premise, that of asylum for refugees.\nImmigration from the Eastern Hemisphere is held at\n170,000 per year with a 20,000 per country limit. Admission\nis granted through a preference system which grants 74%\nof the places to relatives of U.S. citizens and permanent\naliens. The Western Hemisphere ceiling of 120,000 was\nadded at the last moment by Congress and operates on a\nfirst-come, first-serve basis with no preference system\nor per country limits. * Labor certification by the Department\nof Labor is required for all non-relative classes from both\nhemispheres. The 1965 law is the statute which governs\nimmigration today and has, since 1965, had two major\neffects: (1) Immigration has increased by more than 100%\nover the 1924-1965 period; and (2) there has been a shift\naway from European groups toward Asian and Latin American\ngroups.\nThe worker importation provisions of the law apply to\nboth immigrants and temporary workers but they play a\nminimal role in the present policy scheme. Canada and\nAustralia, the two nations most similar to the U.S. in\nimmigration matters, weigh employment impact considerations\nheavily in their criteria for granting immigrant status.\n* P.L. 94-571, signed on October 20, 1976, alters these pro-\nvisions by applying the current preferance system of selection\nfor the Eastern Hemisphere to the Western Hemisphere as well.\nThis report was written and approved prior to that action.\nvi\nChapter II - Illegal Immigration: The Global Picture\nThe principal source of immigration to the United\nStates currently is Mexico, Jamaica, the Dominican\nRepublic, Haiti, Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, and\nChina. Demand for immigration is intense in these\ncountries and several have waiting lists of 2 years or\nmore. These countries are also among the major illegal\nalien source countries. The source countries have\nsimilar characteristics in three respects: rapid economic\nexpansion, high population growth rates, and links with\nthe U.S. This pattern will apply to increasing numbers\nof countries in the future and creates stong push forces\non individuals to migrate. These push forces combine\nwith the pull of available jobs and low risk of detection\nin the United States to produce illegal migration.\nThe phenomenon of migration occurs in streams\naccording to certain principles among which the difficulty\nof intervening obstacles and development of counterstreams\nare prominent. The process is not responsive to legal\nlimits but rather to its own self-sustaining momentum. Policy\nwill have to address the fundamental principles of push-pull\nand migration to be successful.\nIllegal immigration is from many countries but Mexico\nis a major source for reasons of both history and geography.\nvii\nThe governments of the U.S. and Mexico have established\nbilateral discussions on the issue. However, the illegal\nmigration issue has not been a priority concern to policy-\nmakers in the governance of our relations with other source\nnations. Actions discouraging illegal entry may compete\nwith other foreign policy goals, e.g. tourism. However,\nillegal immigration merits a far higher and more generalized\nlevel of attention in our conduct of foreign affairs.\nChapter III - Law Enforcement\nThere is a long history of U.S.-Mexico border enforcement\nin immigration matters. Thus the majority of our enforcement\neffort is directed at this aspect of illegal immigration.\nIllegal entrants from other nations are a relatively\nrecent development that requires significantly different\ntechniques.\nThe Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) has\nprimary responsibility for immigration enforcement. It is\naided by the Department of State which issues visas overseas.\nPrevention of illegal entry is the agency priority and is\ndone through inspection of individuals at ports of entry\nand policing our land and borders between ports. INS also\ncarries on investigative activities within our borders\nviii\nagainst illegals who escape detection at entry or overstay\nauthorized entry. Recent court decisions have limited\nINS' latitude in the interior, making prevention more\nimportant.\nSeveral other agencies have enforcement roles which are\nrelated to illegal immigration. They are the Social Security\nAdministration, Internal Revenue Service, U.S. Customs Service,\nand the Wage and Hour division of the Department of Labor.\nThe Committee has evaluated current and proposed additional\nmeans of interagency cooperation among them and INS and the\nDepartment of State. Experience has shown that cooperation\non enforcement matters is difficult when the agency is service\noriented such as the Social Security Administration. However,\nmuch can be done to increase the effectiveness of enforcement\nwith the tools presently available both among and within the\nagencies concerned.\nIn addition to improved interagency efforts, certain\ndisincentives to illegal migration are needed which require\nlegislation. The disincentives are designed to lessen the\neconomic pull which draws illegals to the U.S., discourage\nthe use of the law to gain time and establish equity for\nimmigration benefits, increase enforcement authorities\nto aid in capturing smugglers and the like, and streamline\nthe law of anachronistic provisions which detract from\nmore important tasks.\nix\nChapter IV - The Illegal Alien: A Soft Portrait\nJudging the impact of illegal aliens on our society\nrequires information which is extremely sketchy at best.\nData deficiencies center on the difficulty of counting\nand describing a clandestine population and the unrepresenta-\ntiveness of using predominantly apprehended, Mexican illegals\nbecause they are readily accessible for research purposes.\nMany studies were reviewed and a composite description\nof the illegal includes personal characteristics by\nnationality, origin within native country, age, sex,\neducation, marital status, language ability, and\nmotivation; characteristics of entry by entry without\ninspection, visa abuse and others; characteristics of\nresidence by location, mobility, and wage remissions;\nand characterisitcs of work place. The major points of\nagreement are that the principal impact of illegals is in\nthe labor market, language ability is an important\ndeterminant in the type of employment, significant\npercentages of earnings are returned to the illegals'\nnative country, and Mexican illegal migration may be\nsubstantially different from that from other source countries.\nChapter V - Domestic Impact of Illegal Aliens: The Issues\nof Employment and Earnings\nBecause research on illegal aliens is in an embryonic\nstate, an exposition of domestic impact remains tentative.\nX\nAmong several perceptions concerning the economic impact\nof illegals are: (a) low skilled illegal alien workers\ncompete with low skilled natives depressing their wages\nand tending to increase earnings of skilled workers and\nowners of capital; (b) illegal aliens create unemployment\nby taking vacant jobs; and (c) illegal aliens take more\nfrom the system in services than they contribute in taxes.\nThe data currently available cannot provide answers. At\nbest it indicates certain directions.\nUseful information may be obtained from analyses\non the foreign born and their impact in combination with\nwhat is known about illegals. Earnings of the foreign\nborn rise with tenure in the U.S. and after 13 or more\nyears are substantially the same as natives. This implies\nthat if undetected, illegals would have the same profile as\nnatives and therefore would not remain a cheap labor source.\nThe analysis does not hold for Hispanics, an important\nillegal alien characteristic, nor does it incorporate the\nillegality factor as a barrier to upward mobility.\nThe termination of the bracero program showed that\nsudden removal of alien labor opened jobs which natives\ntook at improved wages while income to owners decreased\nand consumer prices for their products increased.\nxi\nEuropean countries have made extensive use of temporary\nforeign workers who have made positive contributions to\neconomic growth but who have not returned as planned and\ncreate problems during times of economic slowdown.\nChapter VI - Illegal Immigration: Social Issues\nMigrants moving into new areas seem to resettle according to\nfour stages. First, young, unmarried males predominate\nfollowed by married men in the second stage. In the third\nstage, single males marry and marrieds send for their\nfamilies and settle permanently attracting supporting\npopulations of employers, businesses, etc. in the final\nstage. Restrictions to keep migration temporary rarely\nwork and the last stage is frequently marked by tension\nwith the native population. Different parts of the U.S.\nmay be experiencing different stages of settlement at this\ntime.\nWithin the context of settlement, the welfare issue\nor use of income transfer programs by illegals has received\nmuch attention. These programs are examined and with the\npossible exception of food stamps, which restrict eligibility\non the basis of citizenship, illegals are unlikely to qualify\nbased on age, sex and other personal characteristics.\nDefinitive judgment must await better information on the\ncharacteristics of illegals and the settlement stage (s) of\nvarious groups and areas.\nxii\nSeveral other social issues raised by illegal\nimmigration are population growth, INS enforcement,\nanti-alien sentiment and federal-state-local relations.\nImmigration is one of the major aspects of our population\ngrowth as a nation. If the net number of illegals is\nat least equal to our net immigration, the numerical\nimpact is a central factor in growth.\nINS enforcement causes community resentment and\nhostility in many areas, particularly in ethnic communities.\nThe greatest degree of support is to be found with\nemployer targeted enforcement; serious difficulties\naccompany residence based efforts. This potential\nfor strife is also apparent in anti-illegal alien\norganizing in some large urban areas.\nThe federal government has not worked closely with\nother units of government on illegal alien issues although\nthese are the levels at which immediate impacts are keenly\nfelt. The existence of underground communities which\nactively avoid government presents significant problems\nwhich require cooperation and coordination to prevent.\nChapter VII - Dilemmas for the Future\nBeyond the issues and topics discussed in the report,\nimmigration matters lead to large philosophical and policy\nquestions for the society which will only be answered over\nxiii\ntime. Some of the larger areas within which immigration\nis or should be an important component are government control\nover individuals in law enforcement matters, research\nmethodologies and the limitations of information, long-\nrange foreign policy priorities and imperatives, and\nthe limits of and potential for growth.\nThe conclusions of the report and recommendations\nmake up Chapter VIII.\nxiv\n- 1 -\nPRELIMINARY REPORT\nDomestic Council Committee on Illegal Aliens\nIntroduction\nImmigration to the United States is intended to be\ngoverned by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.\nUnder the provisions of the Act, approximately 400,000\naliens are admitted annually for permanent residence.\nActual immigration, however, bears little resemblance to\nthe program administered under the law. In 1975, 766,600\naliens who had entered or remained in the U.S. illegally\nwere located, about twice the number permitted to enter\nby law. It is believed that the number of illegal aliens\nresiding and working in the United States is considerably\nin excess of the number apprehended and can be expected to\nincrease.\nHistorically, apprehended illegal entrants to the\nUnited States have been largely Mexican in origin concen-\ntrated on the Southwest border in rural areas doing\nagricultural work. Increasingly in the last decade\nconcentrations of illegal aliens are found in industralized\nurban as well as rural areas throughout the country.\nMetropolitan centers such as New York and Chicago report\nillegal populations numbering in the millions although\nhard numbers which are reliable do not exist. In addition,\nthe illegal population, while predominantly Hispanic, is\nfrom many parts of the world.\n- 2 -\nWe are a nation of immigrants and have throughout\nour history been the most hospitable nation in the world\nfor immigrants. Immigrants have and continue to contribute\nmuch to this country individually and in the development\nof our social and political values. We are also a nation\nof laws with a commitment to systems which enforce those\nlaws fairly and effectivley. A growing influx of unauthorized\nimmigrants has important implications for the United States.\nThe overwhelming majority of illegal aliens who come to\nthe United States are in search of economic opportunity.\nMany compete for jobs of interest to native workers. Others\naccept employment for which Americans are seemingly unavail-\nable. All, due to their illegal status, live in fear of\napprehension. As a result, they are susceptible to economic\nexploitation and other forms of abuse, and often live in\nan invisible subculture outside the boundaries of law and\nlegitimate institutions.\nBecause illegal aliens are in a sense invisible, the\nissue is not only difficult to anlayze as a practical matter\nbut is controversial to acknowledge for policy purposes in\ncontexts other than law enforcement. Furthermore, illegal\nmigration in times of prosperity tends to be viewed as a\nhandmaiden of economic growth but it becomes transformed into\na threat in times of economic downturn. Recent awareness of\n- 3 -\nthe finite nature of resources and of population issues\nhas tended to render the cyclical nature of a concern over\nillegal aliens an ongoing concern.\nIn January, 1975, President Ford, established a Domestic\nCouncil Committee on Illegal Aliens. Chaired by the Attorney\nGeneral, the committee consists of the Secretaries of\nAgriculture; Commerce; Health, Education and Welfare; Labor;\nTreasury; State; and the Office of Management and Budget\nwith the Council of Economic Advisors acting in a technical\nadvisory capacity. In January, 1976, the Attorney General\nreorganized the committee into five task forces as follows:\nImmigration Law and Policy - Chair: Immigration and\nNaturalization Service\nEconomic and Labor Market Impact of Illegal Aliens -\nChair: Department of Labor\nSocial and Community Impact on Illegal Aliens - Chair:\nDepartment of Health, Education and Welfare\nEnforcement - Chair: Immigration and Naturalization\nService\n1/\nForeign Relations - Chair: Department of State\nThe task forces are chaired by senior officials selected\nby the respective Department Secretaries and have functioned\nas working committees. The task force chairmen comprise a\nSteering Committee which has provided coordination between\nfull committee meetings.\n1/ This task force. is also known as the Interagency Committee\non Mexican Migration to the U.S. which had been previously\nconstituted pursuant to meetings between President Ford and\nPresident Echeverria of Mexico in 1974. The scope of its\nactivities as originally defined has been broadened for\npurposes of the Domestic Council inquiry.\n- 4 -\nThe task forces were charged with undertaking a\ncomprehensive review of the illegal alien issue and\nwere asked to submit reports of their work by June 1,\n1976. Those reports have been combined and integrated\nto create this preliminary report of the Domestic\nCouncil Committee. The report has a fourfold purpose:\n-\nto provide an overview of the issues and policy\nquestions involved in a comprehensive examination\nof the illegal alien issue;\n-\nto catalogue and assess current efforts to deal\nwith the phenomenon of illegal immigration;\n-\nto catalogue and assess current knowledge about\nthe implications of illegal immigration for the\nneeds and interests of the United States; and\n-\nto formulate recommendations outlining ways in\nwhich the government might respond.\nThe terminology used in the report is as follows:\nillegal aliens are citizens of other countries who are\nnot authorized to be in the United States. Basically there\nare two categories of illegal aliens. Some illegal aliens\nwere never authorized to be in the U.S. and possess no\nimmigration documents. Such persons are known as EWI's\n(Entry Without Inspection) because they entered the country\nsurreptitiously. The second category of illegal aliens\nis individuals who originally entered the U.S. legally and\n- 5 -\nin possession of a visa issued by a U.S. Consul overseas\nbut have since violated or overstayed the terms of the visa.\nSuch persons are known as visa abusers. They may have\nobtained the visa through misrepresentation of their\nintentions, they may have changed plans for a variety of\nreasons after having arrived in the U.S., or they may have\nobtained counterfeit documents and escaped detection at\nthe port of entry.\nThe method of entry and reason for being illegal are\nimportant to certain aspects of this report and will be\ntreated as such. However in many contexts the terms illegal\nalien, visa abuser, undocumented worker, illegal immigrant,\nclandestine migrant and unauthorized worker are used\ninterchangeably. Conversely, the terms used to describe\npersons legally admitted to the U.S. for permanent residence\nwho are eligible to work are permanent resident alien,\nimmigrant, legal immigrant, or commuter.\nApprehension figures will be cited throughout the report\nand are one important index of the existence of an illegal\nalien problem. It is important to note that apprehension\nfigures denote the occurrence of an event, i.e., they are a\nworkload measurement, not a total number of people. Many\napprehended illegals are known repeaters. Thus the number\nof people apprehended each year by INS is less by an unknown\nproportion than the number of apprehensions.\n- 6 -\nCHAPTER I\nUNITED STATES IMMIGRATION LAW AND POLICY\nA.\nHISTORICAL REVIEW OF U.S. IMMIGRATION POLICY\nThe history of Immigration in the United States is a\nchronicle of the conflicting philosophies of economics,\nsociology, politics, and of compassion and prejudice.\nImmigration to the Colonies had its beginnings in the\nearly 1600's when a few hundred colonists established\nsettlements at Jamestown and Plymouth. Some two and a\nhalf centuries later, more than 10 million more had\nfollowed the original vanguard. In 1866 the Statue of\nLiberty was dedicated and still bears an inscription\nfamiliar to most of us:\n\"Give me your tired, your poor,\nYour huddled masses yearning to breathe free,\nThe wretched refuse of your teeming shore,\nSend these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:\nI lift my lamp beside the golden door.\"\nThe spirit of that inscription has in the past generally,\nthough not always, reflected the viewpoint of the American\npeople.\nPeriod of Unrestricted Immigration\nDespite some misgivings, the general attitude of the\noriginal 13 Colonies was to encourage immigration. Such\nencouragement was not motivated merely by a spirit of\naltruism, for immigrants represented a solution to a chronic\nlabor shortage, the means of promoting land settlement of\na sparsely populated country and its resources.\n- 7 -\nDuring the first 100 years following the founding\nof our country, there was little legislation affecting\nimmigration. The act of March 2, 1819 marked the\nbeginning of so-called steerage legislation which sought\nto improve living conditions on ships bringing immigrants\nto the United States. In 1875 a statute barred the\nadmission of convicts and prostitutes. This was followed\nin 1882 by the adoption of the first general immigration\nstatute barring the entry of convicts, mental incompetents,\nand persons likely to become public charges. In the same\nyear, the Chinese Exclusion Act became law and remained\nin effect until it was repealed in 1943.\nIn 1885 and 1887 Congress passed the contract labor\nlaws, which were designed to end the practice of importing\ncheap foreign labor under labor contracts which adversely\naffected the labor market in the United States.\nPeriod of Qualitative Controls\nThese individual immigration laws were codified in\n1891 and began a period of qualitative controls. The act\nincreased the number of classes of aliens who were to be\nexcluded, including polygamists, those convicted of crimes\ninvolving moral turpitude, paupers, and those afflicted\nwith a dangerous disease. Insane persons, epileptics,\nprofessional beggars, and anarchists were added soon thereafter.\nAliens who had entered illegally were to be deported within\none year.\n- 8 -\nFrom 1900-1910, over four million immigrants were\nadmitted primarily from southern and eastern Europe in\ncontrast to previous migrations from northern Europe.\nThe surging tide of immigration during this period\ncreated uneasiness, largely due to economic uncertainty.\nIn 1917 Congress passed another comprehensive revision\nof the immigration laws which included an English literacy\ntest, excluded Asians, and again provided for the deporta-\ntion of aliens who had entered the United States illegally.\nPeriod of Qualitative and Quantitative Controls\nUntil 1921, immigration legislation had been concerned\nsolely with qualitative factors relating to immigrants,\nand no restriction had been placed on the number of entrants.\nAfter World War I, immigration began to increase, leading\nto demands for restrictions to dam the expected flood of\nimmigrants from the war-devastated countries of Europe.\nA lagging economy and an increasingly isolationist mood\nin the country strengthened these demands.\nThe ensuing Quota Law of 1921 represented a drastic\nchange in American immigration policy. Introducing\nnumerical limitations on immigration, the act limited the\nnumber of aliens of any nationality entering the United\nStates to three percent of foreign-born persons of that\nnationality who lived in the United States in 1910. A\nceiling of 350,000 was placed on the total number of aliens\nwho could be admitted as immigrants during any one year.\n- 9 -\nThe policy of numerical restrictions became permanent\nthrough the enactment of the Immigration Act of 1924\ndesigned to supplement the qualitative restrictions of\nthe 1917 act. A national origins formula was adopted\nwhich eventually based a quota for each nationality on\nthe number of persons of that national origin in the\nUnited States in 1920. Under this formula the number of\npersons coming from southern and eastern Europe fell\nsharply. A ceiling of approximately 150,000 was placed\non the number of quota immigrants who were permitted to\nenter each year. However, the act also established\ncertain classes of non-quota aliens able to enter in\nunrestricted numbers. These included natives of Western\nHemisphere countries, alien wives and children of American\ncitizens and returning lawful residents. In addition, the act\nrequired each intending immigrant to obtain a visa abroad from\na United States consular officer and a sponsor in the U.S.\nPersons entering in violation of the visa or quota\nrequirements could be deported without time limitation.\nTo exclude Asians, another provision barred ineligible aliens\nfrom acquiring citizenship.\nThe basic economic and sociological premise of the\n1924 act was that more than 150,000 immigrants per year\nmight be detrimental to the country. The next premise was\n- 10-\nthat maintaining the national origins make-up of the existing\npopulation by rationing the quotas in that proportion was\na desirable end. Compassion gave special status to the\nwives and children of United States citizens, even though\nthis might distort the mix. Other considerations, perhaps\npolitical, permitted immigration of Western Hemisphere\nnatives without regard to numbers or to the percentage\nof such people in the make-up of the population. Prejudice\ndoubtless excluded Asians. Although the Immigration Acts of\n1917 and 1924 remained substantially unchanged until 1952,\nsome restrictions were relaxed by humanitarian considerations\nrelated to the flight of refugees from Communist countries\nin the post-World War II era.\n2/ The War Brides Act of 1945 allowed admission of 118,000\naliens, and the Fiances Act of 1946 brought 5,000 aliens.\nThe Displaced Persons Act of 1948 authorized admission of\nabout 400,000 persons unable to remain in Germany, Italy\nand Austria. The Refugee Relief Act of 1953 permitted\n214,000 refugees to be admitted in three and a half years.\nEmergency measures for Hungarian and Cuban refugees followed.\nMost recently Vietnamese refugees were paroled into the\nUnited States.\n-11 -\nB.\nCURRENT IMMIGRATION LAW\nAlthough amended, the Immigration and Nationality Act\nof 1952 is still the basic statute dealing with immigration\nand nationality. It not only recodified existing law but\nmade many changes. Built upon three basic premises --\nfamily reunification, protecting available jobs for the\ndomestic labor force, and control of alien visitors --\nthe act nevertheless maintained the national origin quota\nsystem. However, it also provided for:\n(1) permanent, limited immigration according to\npreferences for certain relatives of United\nStates citizens and resident aliens and for\nimmigrants with special skills;\n(2) visa requirements for visitors;\n(3) grounds for exclusion of undesirable aliens;\n(4) a double screening barrier requiring both a\nvisa and port of entry admission; and\n(5) deportation grounds, procedures and relief\nfrom deportation.\nThe basic underlying selection factor of the 1924 act\nwas the national origin quota, not occupational status or\nrelationship to persons already residing in the United States.\nCriticized with some vigor from the very beginning, by 1952\nopposition to the national origins quota system had become\n- 12-\nquite vociferous. But the opposition was not sufficient\nto prevent enactment of a new law, over Presidential veto,\nwith the national origin quota provision intact.\n1965 Amendments\nBy 1965 the major political issue concerning immigration\nwas the national origins quota system and its validity as\na basis for selecting immigrants to the United States.\nIn 1963, amendments to the Immigration and Nationality\nAct of 1952 were introduced which brought the\nnational origins quota system into question. On October 3,\n1965 the amendments were signed into law and comprise the\nsystem under which immigration operates today.\nThe 1965 amendments abolished national origin quotas\nas the basis for admission to the United States and\nsubstituted family relationship and needed talents or\nskills as the prerequisites for immigration. The visitor\nand deportation related features of the 1952 act were\nretained as was a revised form of the preference system.\nThe major provisions of the act are as follows:\n1.\nReunification of families is the foremost\nconsideration for gaining immigration admissibility.\nThe closer the family relationship to a U.S.\ncitizen or permanent resident alien, the higher\nthe preference.\n- 13-\n2.\nPreference for admission is also available\nfor individuals who possess certain special\ntalents or skills: a) professionals or those\nwith exceptional ability in the arts or sciences;\nand b) skilled or unskilled workers who can\nfill specific labor needs in short supply.\nIndividuals admitted under these provisions\nmust obtain a labor certification from the\nSecretary of Labor.\n3.\nAnnual ceilings of 170,000 for Eastern Hemisphere\nnatives and for the first time, 120,000 for\nWestern Hemisphere natives were established.\nThe preference system as outlined below applies\nto Eastern Hemisphere immigration. Western\nHemisphere immigration is first come -- first\nserve. *\n4.\nSpouses and children of U.S. citizens and parents\nof citizens over 21 years of age are exempt from\nthe numerical ceilings.\n5.\nFor the Eastern Hemisphere, a foreign state\nlimitation of 20,000 visas per annum was established.\n6.\nEntry of a specified number of refugees annually\nwas authorized in place of separate, special\nlegislative enactments.\n*See footnote, p. vi.\n- 14 -\n7.\nLabor certification controls were strengthened\nto control the influx of skilled and unskilled\nforeign workers.\nThe new preference system went into effect on December 1,\n1965, while the system of hemispheric ceilings was not\neffective until July 1, 1968. (See Charts 1 and 2.)\nConsiderable attention was given to the nature of\nthe new preference system. Prior to 1965, skilled workers\nand professionals who had pre-arranged employment were\nclassified as first preference immigrants and allotted\nfifty percent of each national quota. This preference\nwas used infrequently and the emphasis upon skilled labor\nover relatives was largely reversed by the 1965 amendments\nwhich decreased reliance on imported workers. Three of the\nfirst five preference classes are allotted to relatives of\nU.S. citizens. The percentage of the total limitation\naccorded to the relative classes rose from 50% to 74%.\nOnly professionals are placed ahead of any of the relative\nclasses. Moreover, an additional 6% of the limitation\nwas set aside for the new refugee preference,\nleaving only 20% for workers and their families (10% for\nprofessionals; 10% for skilled or unskilled workers). The\nworker preferences cannot benefit from \"fall down\" - unused\nportions of higher preference allocations -- whereas the\nrelative preference can, and workers, both professional and\nnonprofessional, are subjected to an affirmative labor\ncertification requirement.\n- 15 -\nCHART 1\nLIBRARY\nNUMERICAL LIMITATIONS ON IMMIGRATION VISAS\nSome form of numerical limitation has been imposed on\nimmigration into the United States since 1921, although\ncertain classes of immigrants have traditionally been able\nto obtain visas outside of these limitations. Outlined\nbelow are the basic elements of the amendments of the\nImmigration and Nationality Act by the Act of October 3, 1965.\nAct of October 3, 1965\nI. Classes not subject to the numerical limita-\n(2) Second preference: Spouse and unmar-\ntions:\nried sons and daughters of an alien lawfully\n(1) Spouse and children of U.S. citizens and\nadmitted for permanent residence.\nparents of citizens over the age of 21; (Sec.\n20 percent plus any not required for first\n201(b)).\npreference.\n(2) Returning residents; (Sec. 101 (a) (27)\n(3) Third preference: Members of the pro-\n(B)).\nfessions and scientists and artists of excep-\n(3) Certain former U.S. citizens; (Sec. 101\ntional ability.\n(a) (27) (C))\nNot more than 10 percent.\n(4) Ministers of religion and the spouse and\nchildren of such immigrants; (Sec. 101 (a)\n(4) Fourth preference: Married sons and\n(27) (D))\ndaughters of U.S. citizens.\n(5) Certain employees or former employees\n10 percent plus any not required for the\nof the U.S. Government abroad and the\nfirst three preferences.\naccompanying spouse and children of such\nimmigrants; (Sec. 101 (a) (27) (E)).\n(5) Fifth preference: Brothers and sisters\nII. Numerical limitations to which other ap-\nof U.S. citizens.\nplicants are subject:\n24 percent plus any not required for the\n(1) Overall numerical limitation: 170,000\nfirst four preferences.\nper annum;\n(6) Sixth preference: Skilled and unskilled\n(2) National limit: 20,000;\nworkers in occupations for which labor is\nin short supply in the United States.\nNot more than 10 percent.\n(7) Seventh preference: Refugees to whom\nconditional entry or adjustment of status\n(3) Dependent area limitation Each colony\nmay be granted.\nor other dependency may use not more than\nNot more than 6 percent.\n1 percent of the total of visa numbers avail-\n(8) Nonpreference: Any applicant not en-\nable to the mother country;\ntitled to one of the above preferences.\n(4) Quarterly limitation: Not more than\nAny numbers not required for preference\n45,000 in any of the first three quarters\napplicants.\nof the fiscal year.\n(9) The spouse and child of any preference\napplicant may be classified within the same\npreference if a visa is not otherwise im-\nIII. Preference system (percentage applied\nmediately available.\nagainst 170,000 limitation) :\nIV. Immigrants born in any independent coun-\n(1) First preference: Unmarried sons and\ntry of the Western Hemisphere or in the\ndaughters of U.S. citizens.\nCanal Zone and the spouse and children of\nNot more than 20 percent.\nsuch immigrants are subject to a numerical\nlimitation of 120,000 per annum; (Sec. 21 (e),\nAct of Oct. 3, 1965).\n- 16-\nCHART 2\nEASTERN AND WESTERN HEMISPHERE PROVISIONS OF THE LW*\nThe differences in the Immigration and Nationality Act relating to immigration from the\nEastern Hemisphere and the Western Hemisphere are outlined below:\nEastern Hemisphere\nWestern Hemisphere\n1. Numerical limitations: 170.000 per annum;\n1. Numerical limitations: 120,000 per annum\nnot more than 20,000 per foreign state.\nlimitation became effective July 1, 1968; no\nforeign state limitation. (This limitation is\nimposed by the 1965 Act, not by the Immi-\ngration and Nationality Act.)\n2. As a selective mechanism to enable distribu-\n2. No provision has been made for a preference\ntion of the numbers to the immigrants de-\nsystem.\nsired, a system of seven preference classes\nexists: Four (1. 2, 4, and 5) based on relation-\nship to U.S. citizens or resident aliens, two\n(3 and 6) based on need for labor, and one\n(7) for refugees.\n3. Applicability of section 212 (a) (14) is ex-\n3. Section 212 (a) (14) expressly applies to all\nplicitly restricted to applicants within the\napplicants from the Western Hemisphere\n3d, 6th. and nonpreference categories, thus\nother than parents. spouses, or children of\nexempting sons and daughters (married or\nU.S. citizens and resident aliens.\nunmarried) and brothers and sisters of U.S.\ncitizens.\n4. Adjustment of status in the United States\n4. Adjustment of status in the United States\nfrom nonimmigrant to that of a permanent\nfrom nonimmigrant to that of a permanent\nresident may be obtained.\nresident is not permitted, although the Act\nof November 2, 1966, permits the adjust-\nment of Cuban refugees.\n5. Parents of resident aliens (not being entitled\n5. Parents of resident aliens are exempt from\nto a preference) are subject to section 212\nthe provisions of section 212 (a) (14).\n(a) (14).\n6. Immigrants may not enter from contiguous\n6. No prohibition on entry from contiguous\nterritory without first residing therein for 2\nterritory.\nyears unless they have arrived there on a\ntransportation line which has an appropri-\nate contract with the Attorney General for\nthis purpose.\n* See Footnote, p. vi.\n- 17 -\nApplication of the amendments to the Western Hemisphere\ndoes not appear to have been systematically considered.\nPrior to 1963 immigration from the Western Hemisphere had\nnever been numerically limited, nor were proposals to\nestablish limitations ever seriously considered. Thus,\nthere had also never been a selection process with the\nsystem operating largely on a first-come, first-serve basis.\nThe proposal to limit numerically Western Hemisphere natives\noriginated with the Congress. Its inclusion in the bill\napparently resulted from compromises viewed as necessary\nto gain abolition of the national origins quota system.\nAlthough a Western Hemisphere ceiling was established,\nthe law fails to provide any system of preferences or\nforeign state limitations for Western Hemisphere immigration*\nSubsequent to enactment of the amendments, it was contended\nthat the labor certification provision would serve to\nregulate immigration from the Western Hemisphere, rendering\na preference system or foreign state limitations unnecessary.\nThe evolution of demand for immigration from the Western\nHemisphere has proven this assertion to have been incorrect.\nThe abolition of the national origins quota system has\nhad two significant results.\n1.\nAverage annual immigration since 1965 has risen\nto 390,329 from an average annual figure of\n*See Footnote, p. vi.\n- 18 -\n190,447 during the 1924 to 1965 period, an\nincrease of more than 100%. Although an annual\nnumber of 290,000 is authorized by the hemispheric\nceiling provisions of the law, the additional\n100,000+ result from the exempt categories of\nparents, spouses and children.\n2.\nImmigrant source countries have changed resulting\nin a basic ethnic shift away from European groups\ntoward Asian and Latin American groups.\nWorker Importation Provisions\nThe great majority of post-1965 immigrants have entered\nthe U.S. on the basis of family ties to U.S. residents.\nThus they have been selected independent of labor market\nconsiderations. Nonetheless one goal of the current law is\nto allow entrance for needed workers both on a permanent\nand temporary basis. This goal is an important aspect of a\ndiscussion of illegal immigration and is therefore examined\nmore fully in this section.\nPermanent Immigrant Workers\nUnder current law 3/ certification by the Secretary of\nLabor is required prior to issuance of an immigrant visa\nfor all third, sixth and non-preference immigrants\nfrom the Eastern Hemisphere and immigrants from the\n3/ Section 212 (a) (14) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.\n- 19 -\nWestern Hemisphere except parents, spouses or children\nof U.S. citizens or resident aliens. These categories\npotentially comprise 10-20% of U.S. immigrants each year.\nTo issue a labor certification the Secretary of\nLabor must certify that (a) there are not sufficient\nworkers in the U.S. at the alien's destination able,\nwilling and qualified to perform the job, and (b) employ-\nment of the alien will not adversely affect wages and working\nconditions of similarly employed U. S. workers. Thus\ncertification on a case-by-case basis is required to allow\nan alien to enter. This is a direct reversal of the pro-\nvisions of the 1952 act under which a certification was\nrequired to keep an alien out.\nThe Department of Labor has published two occupational\nschedules. Schedule A -- a precertified list -- consists\nof occupations generally in short supply nationwide.\nSchedule B -- the noncertification list -- includes low-skill\noccupations requiring little or no education, training or\nexperience for satisfactory job performance and for which\ndomestic workers are available or can be readily trained.\nAn alien whose category of employment appears on Schedule A\nqualifies for a certification without a job offer or DOL\nreview. A labor certification without a job offer can also\nbe granted to aliens who are members of professions\nor persons of exceptional ability in the sciences or arts.\n- 20 -\nA specific job offer is a prerequisite for all other\naliens who request certification. The alien's application\nmust be filed by the prospective employer or the employer's\nrepresentative at the State Employment Service (ES) office\nserving the area where the alien is to be employed. The\nES office forwards the application together with pertinent\ninformation on the availability of domestic workers and\nthe prevailing wages and working conditions to the appro-\npriate DOL regional office for a determination leading to\nthe granting or denial of certification.\nDepartment of Labor estimates supported by independent\nresearch, 4/ indicate that only 12 to 15 percent (in FY\n1974 less than 10 percent) of the approximately 400,000\nimmigrants admitted annually receive labor certifications.\nMoreover, of those relatively few, over half (57%) change\noccupations -- not just jobs -- within two years or less.\nThus less than 5 percent of the immigrants are meaningfully\nscreened for their labor market impact, although the\nmajority (65%) of each year's 400,000 immigrants enter the\nlabor market. Furthermore, in 1968, one in every 10 aliens\napplying for certification was already in the U.S. By 1972,\n4/ North, David S., Alien Workers: A Study of the Labor\nCertification Program, U.S. Department of Labor, August,\n1971.\n- 21 -\nthis proportion has increased to 4 in 10. Most already held\nthe job for which certification was requested further\ndiluting the effectiveness of the certification.\nThe present program has obvious shortcomings which\nattach both to the goal stated in the legislation and the\nactual workings of the program:\n1.\nApproximately 1.7 million people join the\ncivilian labor force annually while less\nthan 40,000 (10% of new immigrants) have\nlabor certifications. Sixty-five percent\nor about 260,000 of new immigrants enter\nthe labor market.\n2.\nA negative labor certification decision\ndoes not decrease the number of immigrant\nworkers arriving. It simply stops a parti-\ncular immigrant from coming to a particular\nplace in the United States. His place on the\nvisa waiting list will be filled by someone\nelse, probably destined to work elsewhere.\nThus there is no impact on the macro labor\nmarkets.\n3.\nImpact on micro labor markets is minimal\nsince there is no control over the worker\nafter he arrives and 57% change occupations\nquickly.\n4.\nThe post-1965 labor certification process\nhas not changed the distribution, among\nbroad occupational categories, of\nimmigrants entering the U.S. for employment.\n5.\nIn the significant number of cases where\nthe alien applicants for labor certification\nare already here and working, the labor\ncertification decision has no real impact.\n- 22 -\n6. In cases where the worker is not here or\nnot permitted to remain, timing is important.\nIn the Western Hemisphere, backlogs caused\nby statutory limitations on numbers, currently\nresult in delays of two years to secure a visa.\nEven in the up to date areas of the Eastern\nHemisphere, it takes several months to gain\nadmission. During this period the employer\ndoes not have the worker he claims he needs.\nFurther, the labor market situation may have\nreversed by the time the worker arrives, and\nthere may then be available resident workers\nwith requisite skills.\nTemporary Nonimmigrant Workers\nEach year approximately 6 million aliens are admitted\ntemporarily into the United States for a variety of reasons\nand under many types of visas. About 60,000 or 1% enter\nsolely for employment in the U.S. labor market, i.e., as\nentertainers, agricultural and woods workers, athletes,\nconstruction workers, visiting professors, artists, and the\nlike. The visa designations are H-1 for aliens of outstanding\nmerit and ability (about 15,000/per year), H-3 for industrial\ntrainees (about 5,000/per year), and H-2 for the other\ntemporary workers (about 40,000/per year). 5/ Only the H-2\ntemporary worker is subject to a DOL certification.\nThe Immigration and Nationality Act is clear as to the\nintent of Congress in making the temporary \"importing\" of\nany alien as a nonimmigrant contingent upon the approval by\n5/ Another category of nonimmigrant workers, the L's,\ncomprises intracompany international transferees and their\nfamilies. This group represented over 22,000 persons in\nFY 1975.\n- 23 -\nthe Attorney General of a petition of the \"importing employer.\"\nCongress provides that the alien to be imported under the\nprovisions of section 101 (a) (15) (H) (ii), be coming \"temporarily\nto the United States to perform temporary services or labor,\nif unemployed persons capable of performing such service or\nlabor cannot be found in the United States.\" An employer\nwho wishes to import temporary workers, therefore, must make\nan effort to recruit United States workers prior to seeking\nto import temporary workers.\nThe Department of Labor's role in connection with the\ntemporary employment of alien workers in the United States\nis advisory only. The Attorney General has determined that\nDOL is the appropriate agency of the government for consul-\ntation regarding the importation of an H-2 temporary alien\nworker. Decisions authorizing entrance of H-1 -- aliens of\n\"distinguished merit and ability\" -- and H-3 -- trainees --\nvisitors are made by the Immigration and Naturalization\nService (INS) without consultation with DOL. DOL either\ncertifies that qualified U.S. workers are not available and\nthat the employment of the H-2 alien will not adversely\naffect the wages and working conditions of U.S. workers that\nare similarly employed, or provides notice that such a certi-\nfication cannot be made.\n- 24 -\nAdministrative appeal from a DOL refusal to certify\nis to the INS whose regulations provide that upon DOL\nnotification that a certification cannot be made, the\npetitioning employer may present evidence that qualified\npersons in the United States are not available and that\nDOL employment policies have been observed. All such\nevidence is then considered by INS in adjudicating the\npetition.\nFinally, the DOL advisory opinion accompanying a non-\nimmigrant visa petition to accord an alien worker H-2\nclassification requires a determination as to \"availability\"\nand \"adverse effect.\" DOL has interpreted these criteria\nas follows:\n1. Availability\nA prospective employer who is unsuccessful\nin his attempt to obtain United States workers\nmust present detailed evidence of the attempts\nmade and the number of responses received, in\nwhat manner the United States workers did not\nmeet the requirements offered or were otherwise\nunwilling or unable to accept the employment.\nWhen an employer places a job offer with\nthe State Employment Service (ES) to test the\nlocal market for availability, the offer must\nbe for the same job and the same terms and\nconditions as those offered an alien. However,\nthe ES is only one source of job applicants,\ninvolved in a small percentage of job placement\nin the U.S. economy, and does not actively deal\nin placements in all occupations in the economy.\nThe fact that it cannot produce qualified\n- 25 -\nworkers for a given occupation at a single\ntime and place therefore cannot serve as\nproof that U.S. workers are not available\nfrom other usual sources of recruitment.\n2. Adverse effect\nDOL makes the adverse effect determination\nfrom the contents of the entire application,\nviewed in the light of labor market information,\nspecial circumstances in the industry, parti-\ncular organization, or particular occupation,\nexistence of labor disputes, discrimination,\nmisrepresentation, or conflict with provisions\nof Federal, State, or local laws. Adverse\neffects upon wages and working conditions of\nworkers similarly employed may include hiring\naliens during strikes; hiring aliens of below\nprevailing skills at below prevailing wages;\nhiring aliens for jobs involving a variety of\nskills, high and low, and paying at the lower\nskills rate; excessive turnover of employees\nin the establishment; excessive percentage of\nalien employees in the establishment; or hiring\nof aliens for jobs for which they are not\nqualified or for which they cannot obtain a\nrequired license.\nA wage or salary offer at less than pre-\nvailing wages is an important aspect of adverse\neffect. In determining the prevailing wage,\nthe content of the basic job to be performed is\nconsidered -- not for whom it is to be performed.\nAs the prevailing wage, DOL applies that wage\nfound to be prevailing for those similarly\nemployed in the same area, without distinction\nas to whether the job is in a public or private\norganization, in a union or nonunion situation,\nor in a large or small establishment.\nIn addition, DOL takes into account whether\nemployment offered an alien temporary worker is\ntemporary or permanent because the availability\nof United States workers in a given occupation\ncan vary considerably depending on whether\nemployment is permanent or temporary. The\nnature of the industry for which alien temporary\n- 26 -\nworkers are sought is the principal determinant.\nCoal mining, for example, is a permanent industry\nand the occupations associated with it are\npermanent. In other industries, employers cross-\ntrain the work force to handle peak demands, or\nupgrade the work force to fill in behind highly\nskilled workers and temporarily fill in behind\nthem from among local workers; there are also\npeak or cyclical needs in some industries which\ncan be met only by the temporary employment of\ntemporary workers.\nViewed together the labor certification and temporary\nworker programs involve approximately 80,000 aliens each\nyear. One-half are permanent and the other are temporary.\nSince about 400,000 individuals enter as immigrants and about\n6 million as visitors each year, it is fair to conclude that\nthe worker importation provisions of the current law play a\nminimal role in the present scheme of immigration policy.\nC. IMMIGRATION POLICIES OF OTHER NATIONS\nFew other nations have formalized immigration systems.\nSome, for example Israel and South Africa, have such specific\ngoals as to be largely irrelevant for our purposes. Those\nwhich most nearly approximate the history and policies of\nthe U.S. are Australia and Canada. Their approach offers the\nbasis for some helpful comparative analysis.\nCanadian and Australian attitudes towards persons\nseeking admission as immigrants are substantially different\nfrom our own. Both countries take an active interest in\nrecruiting, assessing and assisting prospective immigrants.\n- 27 -\nBoth maintain substantial numbers of officers with wide\ndiscretionary powers in foreign countries for the purpose\nof interviewing. The personal quality of the prospective\nimmigrant weighs heavily in the final assessment. Qualita-\ntive selection criteria for immigration in both Canada and\nAustralia are so broadly stated as to demand expansion and\ndevelopment through administrative processes. Although the\ngrounds for exclusion are to protect the security and economic\nwell-being of the importing country and the health and welfare\nof its people, in practice both of these countries have left\nto the administrators the power and authority to tailor the\nqualitative selection procedures to best suit their changing\nnational needs.\nOur own system of accepting immigrants inclines to\nbe almost mechanistic by comparison. If the alien has no\ncriminal or subversive record, meets the labor certification\nrequirement, will not become a public charge, and is not\nwithin any other excludable class, an immigrant visa will\nnormally be issued. How well an applicant may personally\nfit into life in the United States does not concern us,\nnor does his attitude towards migration, or his ability to\nspeak English. If the alien meets all the visa requirements,\nit is irrelevant whether adequate housing and medical\nfacilities will be available in the city to which he is\nmigrating, whether his children will have adequate schooling,\n- 28 -\nand whether he intends to learn English. No consideration\nis given to a host of other indicators that point to the\nultimate adaptation, integration and happiness of the\nintending immigrant. In contrast, Australia and Canada\nare very much concerned with such matters.\nCanada\nPrevailing numerical limitations in Canada in any\ngiven year are determined by the Department of Manpower\nand Immigration. Since 1967 Canada has had a system of\nassignment of a variable number of units in certain\nqualifying categories with a maximum of one hundred units.\nThe alien must earn at least 50 units if he is an independent\napplicant, unrelated to a Canadian citizen or resident. A\nsponsored dependent is not subject to the unit scheme if\nhe comes by virtue of relationship to a spouse or other\nclose family member and immigrates solely on the basis of\nsuch relationship. Prospective immigrants having other\nrelatives in Canada are rated partially on the unit assessment\nscale and also receive credits for the relationship.\nThere are several aspects of the Canadian system that\nare of interest. Qualifications considered are not only\nthe demand for the prospective immigrant's occupation, but\nalso his level of skill, whether he has pre-arranged employment,\nor an occupation in which there are unfillable shortages so\nthat a job opportunity is assured. Twenty points are\n- 29 -\nawarded for education and training, 15 for personal\nqualities and 10 for age.\nUnder one policy, a prospective immigrant with\nfive years of education and training is on a par with one\nwith fifteen years. Unlike the Canadians, the United States\nmakes no distinction as to whether the intending immigrant\nis between the ages of 18 and 35 or between the ages of\n36 and 44. The Canadian system gives as much as 10 points\nfor a knowledge of English or French. Our policy is not\nconcerned with knowledge of English except insofar as it\nmight be essential in the job for which the alien has a\nlabor certification.\nCanada awards five additional units depending upon\nthe area of destination. This is undoubtedly related to\nthe fact that approximately half of all immigrants coming\nto Canada are destined for the Province of Ontario and\none half of those settle in the City of Toronto. Canada\nfeels a desperate need to develop large unpopulated areas.\nTherefore an immigrant who is willing to settle in remote\nareas is accorded appropriate recognition.\nAustralia\nThe Minister of Immigration in Australia controls\nthe number of aliens admitted annually. Applicants are\ndesignated through the Australian Selection Assessment\nSystem. To be approved the applicant must establish that\nhe will be economically viable in Australia, that he is\nmedically fit and has a satisfactory character record\n- 30 -\nand personal qualities that will fit into the Australian\ncommunity, and that he has a sincere intention of making\na permanent home in Australia and of becoming a citizen.\nInterviewing officers make firm selection recommendations\nafter considering the size and composition of the applicant's\nfamily, the presence of relatives (if any) in Australia\nand the extent and degree of support and assistance likely\nto be required from the government after arrival. The\nlatter is not unlike our statutory grounds of ineligibility\n(section 212 (a) (15)) which applies when the consular officer\nhas reason to believe that the applicant is likely at any\ntime to become a public charge. The alien's attitude\ntowards migration, expectations in Australia, responsiveness,\ninitiative, self-reliance, independence, appearance, personal\nhygiene, speech and behavior as well as his family unity\nall are relevant to the assessment. Unlike Canada, Australia\nhas no fixed score on the overall assessment that will insure\napproval. It is understood that selection for immigration\nis founded strictly on the economic conditions and labor\nmarket needs of Australia and the whole selection process is\ngeared to deny the immigration of all but those persons who\nwill most benefit the country.\nExempt from the assessment procedure for humanitarian\nreasons are the spouses, dependent children and aged or\n- 31 -\notherwise dependent parents of Australian residents.\nResidents of Australia can also sponsor other close\nrelatives and other people with recognized qualifications\nof experience which will fulfill community needs subject\nto their qualification under a limited administrative\nassessment system.\nCanadian and Australian immigration systems, then,\nvest almost unabridged discretionary powers in selection\nofficers who determine qualifications which are based on\nhighly subjective criteria. However a central goal, that\nof labor market participation and contribution, is\neffectively implemented in these countries.\n- 32 -\nD.\nCONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS\nAlthough the United States is a nation of immigrants,\npolicy which has determined who may enter has embodied\nformidable restrictions, qualitative as well as quantitative,\nintended to prevent open migration to this country. Our present\nlaw, which was passed in 1952 and substantially amended in\n1965, incorporates four main goals: family reunification,\nimmigration of individuals with needed skills and abilities,\nasylum for refugees, and control of visitors. In fact, the\nact works to have one major goal, family reunification,\nand three lesser goals. Most immigrants today are selected\nwholly on the basis of their family ties to U.S. citizens\nor permanent resident aliens with no consideration for their\nrole or impact in the labor market or society in general.\nAlthough provisions for obtaining needed skills and talents\nrepresent one important goal of the current law, the labor\ncertification program for implementing that goal has only\nminimal impact in providing permanent or temporary workers.\nIn contrast, Canada and Australia, countries with immigration\nhistories most similar to our own, effectively treat labor\nmarket needs as a major feature of their immigration systems.\nAs a nation we are experiencing a 100% increase in\nthe number of immigrants since 1965 (about 400,000 per year)\nas compared with the 1924-1965 period (about 190,000 per year).\nIn addition, immigrant source countries have changed markedly\nresulting in a basic ethnic shift in our immigration away\n- 33 -\nfrom Europe in favor of Latin America and Asia. Pressure\nto immigrate from these areas is intense with several\nhigh demand countries having up to two-year waiting\nperiods for immigrant visa issuance. Such backlogs\ncontribute to illegal immigration streams from these\nnations.\nWhen the 1965 amendments were passed, a numerical\nceiling was placed on Western Hemisphere immigration for\nthe first time, however neither a preference system nor\nper country limits were applied as in the case of the\nEastern Hemisphere. Abolishing the national origin quota\nand controlling Eastern Hemisphere entry were the overriding\nlegislative considerations. Virtually no analysis or\ndiscussion prompted the final hour Western Hemisphere\nceiling provision. Thus the statutory framework within\nwhich illegal immigration occurs and is defined was\ndeveloped in order to eliminate past injustices from the\nlaw rather than to establish policy or definitions for\nmeeting society's needs for immigration over future years.\nRECOMMENDATIONS\n1.\nLegislation should be passed by Congress which\nwould extend the preference system and per country\nlimits to the Western Hemisphere so that immigration\nopportunities within each hemisphere are more nearly\nequalized.*\n*See Footnote, p. 241.\n- 34 -\n2. Replace the present case-by-case certification\nprocedures with a system to make determinations\nmore reflective of labor market conditions as\nindicated by data and information.\n3. A thorough study of the effects of the Immigration\nand Nationality Act should be made as the basis for\nproposing fundamental statutory revisions which set\nimmigration levels and qualifications in relation\nto current and anticipated future labor market needs\nof the society.\n- 35 -\nCHAPTER II\nILLEGAL IMMIGRATION: THE GLOBAL PICTURE\nTo formulate a comprehensive understanding and approach\nto the phenomenon of illegal immigration requires examination\nof the forces which create and perpetuate migrations of\npeople. This chapter will examine the demand from other\nnations to immigrate to the U.S. followed by an analysis\nof illegal alien sending countries, migration theory, and\nthe foreign relations issues which must be considered.\nA. WHO WANTS TO COME? - IMMIGRATION TO THE UNITED STATES\nThe impetus to migrate is in varying degrees accommodated\nthrough the immigration laws and system described in Chapter\nI. We can measure the demand to immigrate through (a)\nstatistical data relating to immigrant visa issuance, and\n(b) the numbers of aliens registered on immigrant visa\nwaiting lists. These groups of aliens have met the initial\nqualifying tests of establishing the existence of a qualifying\nfamily preference relationship or obtaining a labor certificate\nfor proposed employment. The only difference between the\ngroups is that immigrant visa numbers have become available\nfor final action for the former group but not yet for the\nlatter. For each hemisphere, waiting lists are maintained\nin chronological order.\nWestern Hemisphere\nThe Visa Office of the Department of State statistically\ngroups the Western Hemisphere countries into two sub-groups:\n- 36 -\nNorth American (including the Caribbean Islands and\nCentral America to Panama) and South America. During\n6/\nthe period 1969\nto 1975, the breakdown between these\nsub-groups was:\nNorth America average - 83,737 visas issued; and\nSouth America average - 15,783 visas issued.\nThe total population of North American countries\nis about 112,000,000 and the total for South America is\n204,000,000. The difference in average visas issued\nshows rather dramatically that North America is the\nprincipal source of immigration to the United States\nfrom the Western Hemisphere with Mexico (almost 50% of\nthe total), Jamaica, the Dominican Republic and Haiti\nas the major source countries.\nFor immigrant visa applicants registered as of\nJanuary 1, 1976, the same principle holds: almost 250,000\nof the 300,000 total Western Hemisphere registrants come\nfrom North America (other than Cuba). In this group,\nMexico is even more predominant, constituting about\ntwo-thirds. Within the Western Hemisphere therefore,\nmajor sources of documented demand for immigration are\n6 First full year of hemispheric ceiling restriction of\n120,000 for Western Hemisphere.\n7/ Excluding Cuba which constitutes a special case and whose\nimmigration figures do not represent a normal outflow.\n- 37 -\nMexico and the Caribbean area, while demand from mainland\nSouth America is relatively minor.\nEastern Hemisphere\nThe Visa Office divides the Eastern Hemisphere into\nfour regions: Africa, Asia (including the Middle East),\nOceania (Australia, New Zealand, Fiji and several other\nisland nations in the Pacific Ocean), and Europe. Documented\ndemand from Oceania is very small, averaging less than\n2,000 per year in 1969 to 1975. Immigration from Africa\nhas also been small during the period, averaging about\n5,300, although it has been increasing. Thus both regions\nhave been negligible sources of immigration.\nAsia and Europe, however, are significant sources of\nimmigration, with high annual averages during the 1969 to\n1975 period: Asia, 83,234 and Europe, 78,345. Although\nAsia and Europe are roughly equal, these average figures\nhide an important shift over the period. In 1969 Europe\nexceeded Asia as a source of immigration in a ratio of\nabout 3:2 (97,393 to 65,935). Annual declines in immigration\nfrom Europe and annual increases in immigration from Asia\nhave virtually reversed this ratio so that in 1975 immigra-\ntion from Asia reached 98,996 and immigration from Europe\nhad fallen to 61,386, a major shift in patterns of immigra-\ntion.\n- 38 -\nFour countries account for 76.1% of Asian immigration\nsince 1969: China, India, Korea and the Philippines. Under\nexisting legislation however, this process of increase\ncannot continue. Of the four countries concerned, three\n(China, Korea and the Philippines) have already reached\nthe maximum annual foreign state limitation of 20,000 per\nyear. Moreover, India reached almost 16,000 in 1975, and\nany increase will be limited to about 4,000. Additional\ndemand will simply build up an annual backlog which will\nmean a waiting period of months or years for new applicants.\nThe January 1, 1976 annual report of aliens registered\non immigrant visa waiting lists shows that of the 225,000\nregistrants reported, over 160,000 were from Asia with\nabout 55,000 from Europe. A case in point is the Philippines\nwhere over 100,000 applicants are registered. The foreign\nstate limitation prevents visa issuance above 20,000 unlike\nthe Western Hemisphere which has no individual state\nlimitations on independent countries.\nThus documented demand for and immigration to the\nU.S. today rests principally with Mexico, the countries\nof the Caribbean and Central America, Korea, the Philippines\nand China.\n- 39 -\nB.\nMAJOR ILLEGAL ALIEN SOURCE COUNTRIES\nFifteen countries comprise the major illegal alien\nsource countries. They are Mexico, the Dominican Republic,\nHaiti, Jamaica, Guatemala, Colombia, Peru, Ecuador, the\nPhilippines, Korea, Thailand, Greece, India, Iran and\nNigeria.\nWith few exceptions, the countries from which\nthe majority of legal immigrants today come and which\nexhibit the greatest documented demand for legal immigra-\ntion are also the countries from which the majority of\nillegal entrants come. While our knowledge of the illegal\nentrant is largely limited to information which can be\ndeveloped about apprehended illegal aliens, it is safe to\nconclude that those countries which have a large documented\ndemand for immigration also have a great hidden demand\nwhich is producing illegal entry to the U.S.\nIllegal migration to the U.S. is from a variety of\ncountries in the less developed world primarily in Latin\nAmerica and Asia. The notion that the illegal problem is\na Mexican problem is mistaken and represents a narrow view\nof the issue even though Mexico is probably the largest\nsingle sending country.\n8/ This list, developed by the Foreign Relations task force,\nis based on data from the refusal/deportation/visa issuance\nstatistics of the Department of State and the Immigration\nand Naturalization Service.\n- 40 -\nThe countries from which illegal aliens come have\nsimilar characteristics in several important respects.\nThese characteristics constitute significant push forces\nwhich, when combined with equally strong pull forces at\nanother point, result in major movements of people or\nmigration.\nInternational Push-Pull\nThe push to migrate is primarily determined by the\neconomic characteristics of the points of origin and\ndestination including wages, unemployment and industrial\ngrowth. Social and demographic factors such as educational\nfacilities, housing, population density, and personal\ncharacteristics of the migrant are involved, however\nemployment differences have proven to be the dominant\ndriving force.\nThe composite picture of illegal alien sending\ncountries is one of depressed economic conditions for the\nvast majority of people with large-scale rural to urban\ninternal migrations underway. The economies of these\ncountries are unable to provide employment for large\nsegments of the skilled, semi-skilled and even professional\npopulation. Furthermore, there exist inadequate community\nservices, including educational facilities, and a general\nlack of social mobility as well as very high population\ngrowth rates. Political instability or a perceived sense\nof impending political violence may also be a factor.\n- 41 -\nSpecific examples, drawn from country reports prepared\nby the Foreign Relations task force, illustrate the push\nfactor.\n\"PERU although rich in minerals is a poor country,\nwith most of its 16 million population earning little\nbetter than subsistence level livings at agriculture,\nmining and fishing.\"\n\"COLOMBIA's per capita income of $510 disguises the\nfact that rural living standards are very low, many people\nlive on subsistence agriculture, urban pressures include\nmarginal masses, and the existence of a 10% unemployment\nrate.\"\n\"In addition, INDIA's many schools and universities,\nsome of which are quite good, turn out a large number of\neducated unemployed, and the prospects for improvement\nin the employment picture are not good in the short or\nmedium term.\"\n\"The results have been increasing disparities\nbetween the developmental levels of the [ECUADORIAN]\ncities and the countryside, greater rural emigration\nwhich has exacerbated urban unemployment and under-\nemployment, inflation rates which have cut the buying\npower of the poor and created even greater social\ndistances between the mainstream and the large and back-\nward Indian population which exists only on the margin\nof the cash economy.\"\n\"Although the rate of population growth has decreased\nsignificantly in the past decade under government-sponsored\ncontrol programs to a 1975 level of 1.7% and is still\nfalling, the number of KOREANS entering the labor force\nannually as a result of higher growth rates in earlier\nyears remains high.\n\"[IRAN's] rapid rise in oil earnings that started in\n1973 triggered an acceleration in development efforts\nthat has overstrained the existing infrastructure.\"\n\"Although MEXICO's economic development in the 1960's\nand 1970's was the highest in any country in Latin America,\nthe fruits of that growth do not benefit the segment of\nthe population attracted to the U.S. Labor Market.\"\n- 42 -\nPull factors in the United States are derived from\nthe economic and technological disparity between the developed\nnations (one-fourth) of the world and the underdeveloped\nmajority. Some evidence indicates that the native U.S.\npopulation has become so educated and upwardly mobile\nthat many are unwilling to take lower paying, low status\nor disagreeable jobs. These jobs are willingly taken by\nworkers from other countries and U.S. employers are anxious\nto hire unskilled foreign-born labor because it is cheap\nand industrious. This availability of work and the lack of\nsanctions for hiring illegal aliens is the single most\nimportant incentive to migration creating the pull portion\nof the equation. For people from other nations the U.S.\nremains a land of economic opportunity hospitable to those\nwho would work hard to improve their circumstances. This\nlure, whether accurate or not, is enhanced by better\nopportunity for schooling and training for themselves and\ntheir children, and improved living conditions. The\nheterogeneity of the U.S. population makes it relatively\neasy to find acceptance in combination with cultural and\nhistorical affinity between estalbished ethnic groups in\nthe U.S. and the sending countries.\n9/\n\"Our common 2,000 mile border with MEXICO is unique\nin that nowhere else on earth does a political boundary\nseparate two major countries with greater economic disparity.\"\n9/ The U.S.-Mexican border is 1945.86 miles as determined by\nthe U.S. Geological Survey. A rounded figure of 2,000 miles\nwill be used in this report.\n- 43 -\n\"As against a U.S. per capita GNP now exceeding $5,000\nper year, the PHILIPPINE per capita GNP, at current prices,\nreached only $368 in 1975.\"\n\"Some employers also prefer MEXICAN illegal workers\nfor some occupations because they form a more passive\nsupply of labor than more mobile native workers -- they\ntend to work 'scared and hard'.\"\n\"COLOMBIANS, in general, and the poorer classes in\nparticular, have come to view the United States as a\nrelatively accessible land, of high living standards,\nupward social mobility, and unlimited opportunity.'\n\"Despite GREECE's economic growth and European\nEconomic Community ties, the U.S. will still remain a\nstrong drawer of GREEK immigrants primarily because of\nthe size of the Greek-American community and because of\nthe importance of family and religious ties.\"\nIllegal alien source countries share essentially three\ncommon characteristics which seem to operate in combination\nto produce illegal migration. The pattern which emerges\nis one which will, given current trends and policies, apply\nto increasing numbers of countries in the world over the\ncoming decades.\n1.\nRapid Economic Expansion\nThe source countries tend to show signs of rapid\neconomic growth and expansion and do not rank with the\nvery poorest nations in the world. This is to be\nexpected as individuals in the poorest nations have\ntoo few skills, too little knowledge of the U.S., and\ntoo few resources to attempt migration. Accompanying\ngrowth in source countries has frequently been a\npersistent mal-distribution of income so that the\nbenefits of expansion have not accrued to all geographic\nor economic groups in the population.\nThus, expectations have often risen faster than\nhas the capacity to fulfill them. If this pattern\nis an inevitable aspect of rapid economic growth,\nwe can expect more nations to be involved in the future.\n- 44 -\n2.\nHigh Population Growth Rates\nThese countries have high rates of population\ngrowth with the majority being young. Thus large\nnumbers of people are and will be seeking employment\nin the future. Annual population growth rates of\n2.5, 3.0, and 3.5% tend to offset gains made toward\nthe creation of adequate numbers of jobs, the most\nimportant development challenge facing these countries.\nEmigration serves as a stop gap measure contri-\nbuting to the postponement, to some extent, of necessary\nsource country changes. While providing a safety\nvalve, it also has definite draw backs for the sending\ncountries. Migration is inevitably selective.\nAlthough the education level of migrants is on the\naverage somewhat lower than that of native Americans,\nit is usually higher than that of the natives in the\nsending countries. Emigration removes people of\nproductive age and leaves behind children and old\npeople thereby raising the underdeveloped country's\nalready high dependency ratio. The value of remittances\nsent back home may partly compensate for those losses,\nbut the remittances are often uncertain. When they\ncome, they are spent largely on consumer items rather\nthan directed toward capital formation.\nAs the source countries become still more crowded,\nthere will be increasing pressure for emigration.\nGenerally speaking, however, the problems of under-\ndeveloped source countries are beyond solution by\nemigration. Should the United States try to accept\nas migrants the excess population growth of these\ncountries, we would be dealing with the following\nfigures:\nTotal Population\n1976\n2000\nUnited States\n215,300,000\n262,500,000\nSource Countries\n976,000,000\n1,743,200,000\n- 45 -\nThe world's first billion inhabitants were\nproduced by around 1850. By 1930 there were 2 billion.\nBy 1961 world population reached 3 billion. Fifteen\nyears were required to pass 4 billion and at present\ngrowth, 5 billion will be reached in 13 years. Latin\nAmerica has the world's most rapid rate of growth\nwith a population exceeding 326 million. It will\nenter the 21st centruy with well over one-half a\nbillion people (606 million), having taken only\n25 years to double its population at today's growth\nrate.\n3. Links With the U.S.\nCultural or historical links between the U.S. and\nthe source countries appear to be a necessary ingredient\nin illegal immigration. A migration stream is sustained\nby positive reports, generally by word of mouth, of\nconditions, both economic and personal, in the host\ncountry. Links develop through U.S. cultural saturation\nof source countries, e.g., wartime presence in Korea\nor the Philippines, or through the existence of\nethnically familiar communities in the U.S. Concentra-\ntions of legal immigrants are by no means necessarily\nsupportive of or involved in illegal immigration.\nHowever, their very existence creates conditions of\ncultural familiarity and psychic support which are\nimportant factors in sustaining migration streams.\nPush and pull forces act cumulatively to create intense\npressure for migration to the U.S. When it cannot be\naccommodated through authorized means, it may turn to\nclandestine means for the policies and resources which seek\nto contain it are not nearly so strong or fundamental as\nthose which operate to nurture it.\n- 46 -\nMAJOR ILLEGAL ALIEN SOURCE COUNTRIES\nPopulation Estimate\nMid-1976 (millions)\n0.8 Growth (annual, percent)\nRate of Population\n87 Number of Years to\nDouble Population\nPopulation Projection\nto 2000 (millions)\nPopulation under\n15 Years (percent)\nUrban Population\n(percent)\nPer Capita Gross\nNational Product (US$)\nCOUNTRY\nUSA (Reference)\n215.3\n262.5\n27\n74\n6,640\nMexico\n62.3\n3.5\n20\n134.4\n46\n61\n1,000\nDominican Republic\n4.8\n3.0\n23\n10.8\n48\n40\n590\nHaiti\n4.6\n1.6\n43\n7.1\n41\n20\n140\nJamaica\n2.1\n1.9\n36\n2.8\n46\n37\n1,140\nGuatemala\n5.7\n2.8\n25\n11.1\n44\n34\n570\nColombia\n23.0\n3.2\n22\n44.3\n46\n64\n510\nPeru\n16.0\n2.9\n24\n30.9\n44\n60\n710\nEcuador\n6.9\n3.2\n22\n14.0\n47\n39\n460\nPhilippines\n44.0\n3.0\n23\n86.3\n43\n32\n310\nKorea\n34.8\n2.0\n35\n52.3\n40\n41\n470\nThailand\n43.3\n2.5\n28\n86.0\n45\n13\n300\nGreece\n9.0\n0.4\n173\n9.7\n25\n53\n1,970\nIndia\n620.7\n2.0\n35\n1,051.4\n40\n20\n130\nIran\n34.1\n3.0\n23\n67.0\n47\n43\n1,060\nNigeria\n64.7\n2.7\n26\n135.1\n45\n16\n240\nPopulation Data: Population Reference Bureau,\nWashington, D.C.\n- 47 -\nThe Migration Phenomenon\nThe combination of push forces at a point of origin\nand pull forces at a point of destination result in\nmigration, a complex phenomenon involving demographic,\n10/\nanthropological, economic and political interrelationships.\nPeoples have been in movement for all of recorded history\ndrifting from place to place in response to social, political,\nand economic factors. As these factors change over time,\npatterns of migration change. Migration is both internal\nto countries and external. While our interest rests with\nexternal or outcountry migration, the distinction between\nin and out-country migration is not primary. Rather,\nmigration is the playing out of forces among which national\nboundaries is a secondary, not a controlling factor.\nGiven the push-pull construct as the underlying basis\nfor individual decisions to migrate, migration as a\nphenomenon exhibits common, predictable features.\n1. Migration tends to take place largely within\nwell defined streams.\n2. For every major migration stream, a smaller\ncounterstream develops. Some migrants intend to\nreturn; others return because of difficulties in\nre-settling.\n3. The net migration is high when conditions at the\ndestination are favorable in comparison to those at\nthe origin.\n10/ See Weaver, Thomas and Downing, Theodore E., ed.,\nMexican Migration, University of Arizona, 1976, for a full\ndiscussion.\n- 48 -\n4. Migrants tend to be the more highly motivated\nand able individuals from the areas they leave.\n5. The volume of migration increases as the difficulty\nof the intervening obstacles (distance, expense,\nnatural barriers, laws) lessens.\n6. The greater the intervening obstacles, the more\nhighly motivated and able are the migrants.\n7. In the absence of severe checks, both volume and\nrate of migration tend to increase with time.\nThese general principles provide a framework for\nanalyzing the policy questions which illegal immigration\npresents. If movement into the United States takes place\nwithin well defined streams, our legal immigration may\nserve to beget illegal immigration from countries where\nthe pressure to emigrate is greater than our legal limits\ncontemplate. Legal immigration limits are a function of\ndomestic political considerations and perceived national\ninterests. However migration streams develop in response\nto economic and social forces which our law was never meant\nto accommodate. However legal immigration may well set in\nmotion a self-sustaining process which is guided by its own\nmomentum instead of by the law which spawned and seeks to\ndefine it.\nTo recognize the possibility of legal immigration\nfostering illegal immigration is not to conclude that\nimmigration from high demand areas should cease. It does,\n- 49 -\nhowever, require careful consideration of what other tools\nmay be available to influence the migration process. The\nrate and nature of migration is strongly influenced by the\nobstacles between origin and destination. Thus we would\nexpect an easily penetrated land border to be more inviting\nthan a cross-ocean journey which involves considerable\nexpense and procurement of documents. Stressing prevention\nof entry by making the physical process of coming to the\nU.S. more formidable and risky is an obvious approach\nwhich addresses basic principles guiding migration.\nTo the extent that the obstacles between origin and\ndestination simply involve physical difficulties related to\ngaining entry, they present but one level of an obstacle\nstrengthening approach. Policy could also recognize the\nease or difficulty of living in the U.S. illegally. In\nthis regard the availability of work, services, change of\nlegal status and the likelihood and penalties of being\ndiscovered are important.\nThe principle of counterstream and net redistribution\nof population pursuant to migration also provide tools. If\nthere is a built in tendency for migrants to return, policies\nwhich encourage return in both host and sending countries\nmight be developed. Over the long term, narrowing the gap\nin conditions between origin and destination will make it\n- 50 -\nless compelling for migrants to brave the difficulties of\nresettlement. Experience with Italy-U.S. migration has\nhad an interesting history in this regard. Until recently\nthe pressure to emigrate from Italy had been intense\ndisplaying all the characteristics and patterns of source-\nhost country relationships discussed earlier. However in\nrecent years the surge has become a trickle and the explana-\ntion given by observers relates to the gradual but definite\nimprovements in living standards that have occurred in\nhigh out-migration areas of Italy. Remaining in Italy\nstill does not offer the economic opportunity available\nin the U.S. However, the gap has been narrowed to a\npoint where overcoming the financial, cultural and psychic\ncosts of resettling is attractive to fewer and fewer\nwould-be immigrants.\nPrograms directed at the counterstream and net\nredistribution principles must also take into consideration\nthe forces which influence migrants during the settlement\nprocess in a new country. Settlement is discussed in detail\nin Chapter VI, however in general it can be said that\nmigrants who may intend to remain only temporarily in a new\ncountry tend to undergo a basic change in aspirations or\ngoals rather quickly which causes them to resettle permanently.\n- 51 -\nThus settlement pressures may outweigh the incentives\navailable to effect significant counterstreams. A\ncareful understanding of migration and analysis of the\nspecific character of the migrations we are currently\nexperiencing must be sought and utilized by policymakers.\nIllegal immigration is a result of international push-\npull forces which are stronger than the law and systems\ncurrently in place to control it. Comprehensive policy\napproaches, both short and long term, must be directed\nat the ingredients which create push-pull and at the\nprinciples governing the migration phenomenon if they\nare to have any reasonable chance of successfully slowing\nthe illegal alien flow.\n- 52 -\nC.\nMEXICO AND THE UNITED STATES - A BILATERAL APPROACH\nAlthough clandestine migration is not a narrowly based\nphenomenon limited to few countries or causes, Mexico does\noccupy a unique historical and geographical place in the\npicture.\nThe number of Mexican nationals who have legally\nemigrated to the United States has steadily increased\nover the last decade. During the period from 1963 through\n1975, Mexicans constituted at 664,453 the largest group of\nlegal immigrants to the United States. In 1975, the\n62,205 Mexican immigrants admitted represented approximately\n16 percent of the total legal immigration to the United\nStates, double the second largest national contingent\nwhich was from the Philippines.\nHowever, the Immigration and Naturalization Service\n(INS) apprehends and returns to Mexico more undocumented\nmigrants each year than the total number of people who\nemigrate legally to the United States from all nations of\nthe world. Thus Mexico is our most sizeable current source\nof clandestine immigration as well as legal immigration.\nMexico-U.S. comparisons present a classic example of\npush-pull factors with the most striking feature being\nannual per capita incomes of $700 and $5000, respectively.\nStill the case of Mexico is also unique in two important ways.\n- 53 -\n-\nWe share a common 2000 mile border which is\nrelatively easy to cross.\n-\nMexican migration to the U.S. is not a recent\ndevelopment but rather part of a long history\nof significant regional cultural commingling\nand economic interdependence.\nEvaluated within the framework of migration discussed\nearlier, these differences are significant. Our common\nborder is a far less formidable intervening obstacle\nthan is an ocean and therefore influences the selectivity\nof the migration as well as the volume. Time and cultural\nreceptivity are equally important indicators influencing\nmigration. The North-Houstoun research, which will be more\nfully discussed in Chapter IV, indicates that the Mexican\nmigration is qualitatively different largely due to the\nfactors which make Mexico distinct from, rather than similar\nto, other illegal alien source countries. This suggests\nthat a different approach to Mexican clandestine migration\nmay need to be fashioned although much research must yet\nbe done in order to understand better the similarities and\ndifferences which are relevant to policy. It also suggests\nthat bilateral negotiations and cooperation should be sought.\n- 54 -\nUndocumented Mexican migration raises difficult issues\nfor the governments of both Mexico and the U.S. Mexican spokes-\nmen cite the unreliability of the illegal alien data base which\nis disseminated by official American sources as a major concern.\nThey wish to insure that the legal, labor and human rights of\ntheir nationals in the U.S. are fully protected. Mexico has\nrecently established several significant internal resettlement\nefforts directed at Mexican workers from areas of high rural\nout-migration. These programs rely on rural development\nthrough labor intensive employment schemes. Any sudden return\nto Mexico of large numbers of undocumented workers would\nexacerbate already serious internal employment problems.\nThe United States hopes for increased enforcement of\nextant Mexican laws and regulations directed at immigration to\nthis country. Examples are:\n-- ensuring that persons leaving Mexico do so through\na designated place of departure.\n-- increased enforcement directed against Mexican or\nAmerican smugglers of illegal aliens.\n-- identification of persons in the border areas who\nare there solely for the purpose of surreptitiously\nentering the United States.\n-- preventing nationals from third countries from using\nMexico as a means of illegally entering the United\nStates.\n- 55 -\nWhile such measures would help to slow the flow of\nMexican illegal aliens, they do not address the underlying\ncauses. For the long term much more must be known about the\ndimensions, characteristics, and impacts of Mexico-U.S.\nmigration to develop effective approaches.\nProposals for joint action should be directed at law\nenforcement and criminal abuse of undocumented workers as well\nas at relevant economic, trade, investment and labor matters.\nU.S. -Mexico Discussions\nThe problem of the illegal Mexican migration is currently\nbeing discussed by the U.S. Inter-Agency Committee for the\nStudy of Problems Related to the Illegal Migration of Mexican\nAliens Into the U.S. 11/ and the Mexican Commission on Undocu-\nmented Workers. These groups, established as an outgrowth of\nPresident Ford's meeting with President Echeverria in October,\n1974, last met in a joint plenary session in Washington, D.C.,\nApril 19, 20, 21, 1976. Follow-up sessions have since been\nheld at several border sites. The work of these groups repre-\nsents initial steps toward meeting the serious need for\ncooperative efforts between the governments of both nations.\n11/ Serves as Foreign Relations task force of Domestic\nCouncil Committee on Illegal Aliens.\n- 56 -\nOther Countries\nWith the possible recent exception of Mexico, the\ncontrol of illegal immigration has not been an item of\nconcern to U.S. policymakers in the governance of our\nrelations with sending countries. The State Department's\ncountry policy papers, which outline U.S. policy goals\nfor the major sending countries, do not in any case cite\nillegal emigration as an issue although several accord\npriority to establishing effective visa issuing processes.\nBureaucratic expertise or resources with regard to migra-\ntion and related issues are sparse at best. Research\nmonies in the international area are not commonly directed\nat the relationship between migration and other foreign\npolicy goals. The research which is available and which\nis discussed in Chapter IV indicates that there may be\nsignificant differences between Mexican migration and that\nof the Caribbean and Central American countries. Very\nlikely the influx from the Philippines poses important\nvariations to the theme as well.\nIllegal immigration must be accorded a far higher and\nmore generalized level of attention in the conduct of foreign\naffairs. Illegal emigration is not simply a consular matter\nbut a central feature of development in a significant number\nof countries. While the issue encompasses a somewhat unique\nblend of foreign and domestic policy concerns, this combination\nhas appeared before in such areas as drugs for example.\n- 57 -\nSlowing the flow of illegal aliens will require new\npolicies in both the domestic and foreign relations areas.\nUnderstanding and cooperation from sending countries is\ncritical. Steps to establish bilateral discussion and\njoint cooperation must be significantly expanded to\ninclude all the major source countries and the issue of\nillegal emigration must in and of itself as well as through\nthe attendant issues of family planning, rural develop-\nment, employment policies and the like, receive greater\nforeign policy emphasis.\n- 58 -\nD.\nCOMPETING FOREIGN RELATIONS PRIORITIES\nStrict Visa Issuance Controls\nTo pursue a policy of actively discouraging illegal\nimmigration from within source countries would impinge on\ncertain established practices and policy goals. The\nmost obvious is our long-established goal of promoting\nstudent and visitor travel.\nWhat would be the result if the U.S. Government were\nto exercise its sovereign right to adopt a more effective\nvisa issuing and port of entry admission posture? This\nwould include more careful screening out of fraudulent\napplicants who misrepresent their real intent to work and\nremain in the United States with false claims or documents.\nSection 214 (b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act\nclearly spells out that \"Every alien shall be presumed\nto be an immigrant until he establishes to the satisfaction\nof the consular officer and the immigration officers\nthat he is entitled to a nonimmigrant status.\" If this\nbasic provision of the law were vigorously and thoroughly\nenforced, visa refusal rates and exclusion statistics for\nthe illegal alien source countries would doubtless rise\nsharply.\nThe State Department believes that our relations with\nthe source countries would not be noticeably affected if\n- 59 -\ncontrols of ineligible aliens were tightened somewhat on a\nworldwide, non-discriminatory basis. Even in the event of\na significant increase of visa refusal and exclusion rates,\nwhile there might be some souring of local attitude toward\nthe United States within certain elements of the local\npopulace, there would in all probability be no immediate\neffect on intergovernmental relations. Imposition of\ncontrol measures with real teeth or outright exclusion,\nhowever, could cause serious repercussions, especially in\nMexico, and to a lesser degree in the Caribbean area and\nthe Philippines. As a current U.S. foreign relations\npriority, an effective visa issuing process varies within\nthe source countries. This function is inadequately stressed\nin current U.S. foreign country policy goals.\nTourism\nImposition of stricter travel controls could adversely\naffect the mission of the United States Travel Service (USTS)\nas stated in the 1961 International Travel Act:\n(1) develop, plan and carry out a comprehensive program\ndesigned to stimulate and encourage travel to the\nU.S. by residents of foreign countries for the\npurpose of study, culture, recreation, business,\nand other activities as a means of promoting\nfriendly understanding and goodwill among the\npeople of foreign countries and the U.S.; and\n- 60 -\n(2) encourage the simplification, reduction, or\nelimination of barriers to travel, and facilita-\ntion of international travel generally.\nUSTS argues that actions which would frustrate or\nimpede the flow of bonafide tourists into the U.S. --\nfor example the prescription of more stringent tests of\nnon-immigrant status for visa applicants, the imposition\nof travel controls on persons entering, or intending to\nenter, the country legally, or the settling of a rigid\nrejection rate objective, by country, for visa applications\n-- would conflict with national tourism policy and affect\nthe Travel Service's ability to carry out its responsibilities.\nTourism is an important element of U.S. trade in goods\nand services, and according to USTS accounted for an\nestimated $5.5 billion in foreign exchange earnings in\n1975. USTS estimates that every $15,000 in tourism receipts\ncreates or supports one job. Expenditures by international\nvisitors supported about 366,000 American jobs in 1975.\nWhether or not strengthened controls will decrease\nthe number of bona fide tourists is an important issue.\nUSTS points Qut that any significant changes to control\nthe flow of illegal aliens must take into account an awareness\nof the economic benefits of tourism, the legitimate interests\nof the tourism industry (including labor) and the intent of\nthe Congress in passing the International Travel Act of 1961.\n- 61 -\nOther priorities in overseas investment programs,\ndevelopment efforts and the like very likely come into\nplay. In the long term exploration and analysis of the\ninter-relatedness of emigration and a wide range of foreign\npolicy goals and practices is needed.\n- 62 -\nE.\nCONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS\nThe demand to immigrate legally to the United States\nis intense in Mexico, several Caribbean and Central\nAmerican nations, the Philippines and Korea. These are\nalso prominent among the 15 major illegal alien sending\ncountries. When the pressure to emigrate cannot be met\nthrough authorized means, it may become clandestine for\nthe push forces creating it are stronger than the official\npolicies or systems established to contain it.\nThe economic push due to a lack of jobs and economic\nopportunity in source countries is met by strong pull\nforces in the U.S. The major attraction for illegal\nimmigration is available work. The illegal entrant\nrisks detection but the risk is not great enough to\nprevent significant numbers from coming. This combination\nof international push and pull forces is the basic cause\nof illegal immigration. Some tools around which to\ndevelop new policies are suggested by the principles\nwhich describe the phenomenon of migration, principally\nthe deterrent potential of increased obstacles.\nIllegal alien sending countries exhibit striking\nsimilarities in the areas of economic expansion, population\ngrowth, and links with the U.S. These characteristics\noperate in concert to produce migration which functions\nas a safety valve for the sending country and contributes to\npostponement of necessary change. Under current conditions\n- 63 -\nin the U.S. and abroad the potential number of aliens\ninvolved is staggering. If pressure to emigrate to the\nU.S. is indeed a function of certain patterns of development,\nwe can expect to add other countries to the source list in\nthe future.\nAlthough Mexico is not the sole source of illegal\nentrants, it is the major source. Bilateral discussions\nbetween the U.S. and Mexican governments have been initiated\nand working proposals on law enforcement, criminal abuse\nof Mexican nationals and relevant economic issues are\nbeing developed. Solutions to the illegal alien problem\nmust include cooperation and support from source country\ngovernments. Bilateral discussions must be greatly expanded.\nIn addition, control of illegal immigration must become\na more central concern to U.S. policymakers in the conduct\nof our foreign relations. This means that some conflicts\nwith other foreign affairs goals, such as promotion of\ntravel and study in the U.S., need to be considered.\nRecommendations\n1.\nState Department Contribution to Research\nA major U.S. Government research effort aimed\nat filling in the extensive knowledge gaps regarding the\nflow of illegal aliens should be supported, with interagency\ncoordination. For example, the Department of State should\ndevelop a correlation analysis for those factors that have\n- 64 -\nbeen identified as common to most source countries. This\nshould be specifically structured to extrapolate data\ncapable of predicting future flows of illegal migration.\n2.\nContinuation and Expansion of U.S./Mexico Dialogue\nUseful discussions between the U.S. Interagency\nCommittee on Illegal Aliens and the Mexican Inter-\nSecretarial Commission have been held. Such meetings\nand exchanges must be continued and established with other\nsending nations. Future meetings should include intensified\ncooperation between U.S. and Mexican immigration officials,\nestablishing working groups to deal with operational problems\nand developing proposals for economic policies.\n3.\nEstablish Position in State to Coordinate Illegal\nMigration Matters\nThe State Department should establish a full-time\nposition and resources for overseeing worldwide efforts at\nslowing the flow of illegal aliens. The magnitude and\nspread of illegal migration calls for an intrafunctional\napproach involving political and economic personnel and\nresources in addition to the techniques utilized in\ntraditional consular procedures. The migration officer\nwould also act as liaison officer for State with INS and the\nDomestic Council Committee on Illegal Aliens.\n- 65 -\n4.\nDevelop Strategies Aimed at Push-Pull Forces\nThe relationship between push-pull, migration\ntheory, individual source country patterns of economic\ngrowth, and U.S. foreign relations with those countries\nmust be thoroughly analysed and re-evaluated. We must\ndevelop strategies and programs which address the basic\nthemes of push-pull and migration recognizing that\nfundamental changes, difficult for governments to control\nin the short term, must be sought.\n- 66 -\nCHAPTER III - LAW ENFORCEMENT\nToday the enforcement of this nation's immigration\nlaws is largely directed at the problem of illegal immi-\ngration. To understand enforcement issues, one must\nseparate the migration of undocumented workers from\nMexico, which has its antecedents during World War I,\nfrom the more recent phenomenon of a movement of labor\nfrom certain less developed nations to the U.S. The\nlatter has only begun to manifest itself since the mid-\n1960's, and involves, based on the evidence to date,\nseveral migration streams from various parts of the world.\nA.\nBACKGROUND\nMexico\nBasic to the issue of Mexican immigration into the\nUnited States is the nature of the border between the two\nnations. The entire region which now encompasses our\nboundary once belonged to Spain and later to Mexico.\nOriginally explored and colonized by Spanish-speaking\npeople, it was developed by them for almost three hundred\nyears before a definite boundary was drawn giving to the\nUnited States that portion generally north of the Rio Grande.\nThe border, established without regard to either the ethnic\ncomposition or the economy of the people within the region,\nhas been called one of the most unrealistic borders in the\nWestern Hemisphere.\n- 67 -\nLegally, immigration is \"the passing or moving into a\ncountry with a purpose of permanent residence.\" When\napplied to the border, the place of residence is the region,\nand thousands of Mexican people have been accustomed to live\nin the area for generations. The permanence of residence\nis not destroyed by the mere crossing of a line which is\nfor the most part imaginary, regardless of the side of that\nline upon which one happened to be born. Unlike immigrants\nfrom Europe and the rest of the world, the Mexican has no\ngreat psychological or physical obstacles in the path of\nhis migration. Culturally and economically, the northern\nStates of the Republic of Mexico are in many respects\nsimilar to the Southwest region of this country.\nIn a sense, then, the cultural basis for the current\nsituation in our Southwest was established after the\nMexican-American War of 1846. Through the Treaty of\nGuadalupe Hidalgo, the United States annexed most of the\nterritory which now comprises the states of Arizona,\nCalifornia, Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas, as well as\nsmaller parts of Nevada and Utah. Under the terms of this\ntreaty, all Mexican citizens living within this area were\nto become citizens of the United States if they did not\n- 68 -\nleave the newly acquired territory within one year or\ndeclare their intent to retain Mexican citizenship.\nFew chose to leave.\nVery little immigration across this new political\nboundary took place until the turn of the century.\nBetween 1910 and 1917, 150,000 Mexicans emigrated to the\nU.S. largely as a result of violence accompanying the\nMexican civil war. With the advent of the First World\nWar, the United States faced certain labor shortages.\nNot only agriculture, but railroad and mining interests\nrequired an available supply of cheap labor. The\nSecretary of Labor authorized immigration officials to\nexempt illiterate temporary Mexican farm workers from the\nimmigrant qualifications and head tax provisions of the\nImmigration Act of 1917. A rapidly industrializing America\nas well as the nomadic life thrust upon Mexican agricultural\nworkers combined to induce movement into many cities of the\nMidwest and Northwest. Although the largest number\nremained in the Southwest, significant enclaves of Mexicans\nwere established in a number of Midwestern cities.\nThe dispersion continued until the Great Depression\nwhen approximately 200,000 Mexicans, who had entered without\ndocumentation, were repatriated. Special efforts were made\nto locate and remove illegal Mexican aliens. In fact, the\n- 69 -\ncampaign became so zealous that certain numbers of persons\nof Mexican ancestry -- usually with some form of legal\nequity -- were induced to repatriate themselves by\n\"voluntarily\" returning to Mexico. Stopping welfare pay-\nments was one device used to aid in this effort. Much\nof the latent antagonism of Mexican-American communities\ntoward the Immigration and Naturalization Service and its\nagent, the Border Patrol, which was created in 1924, has\nits origin in this unhappy period.\nThe Bracero Program\nWorld War II again brought war-related labor shortages\nwhich prompted this country to seek an arrangement with the\nGovernment of Mexico for the temporary importation of\nworkers. In August, 1942, a formal agreement between\nMexico and the United States was negotiated and the action\nlaunched the Mexican Labor Program, better known as the\nBracero Program, under which Mexican labor was to be\nprovided for agricultural and railroad laborer jobs.\nProvisions of the contract stipulated that workers were to\nbe afforded protections in housing, transportation, food,\nmedical services, and wage rights.\nThe Bracero Program was to terminate in 1947, however,\nit was continued informally until 1951. In that year, it\nwas formalized as Public Law 78, and the agreement for\n- 70 -\nMexico to provide laborers to work in the American rural\nlabor markets remained in effect until terminated on\nDecember 31, 1964.\nOperation Wetback\nIllegal Mexican migration increased during the\nBracero years because employers, dissatisfied with the\nBracero Program, sought to maximize their profits. Texas\nfarmers, because of Mexico's refusal to extend the Bracero\nProgram into their state for a time, probably hired more\nillegal Mexican aliens than any other state. As a result,\nthe Border Patrol launched Operation Wetback in 1953-54,\nand nearly 1 million apprehensions of clandestine Mexicans\nwere made in one year.\nSome contend that a major function of the Border\nPatrol in this period was to regulate through selective\nenforcement rather than by apprehension and exclusion.\nCertainly one controversial practice of this era was the\nso-called \"wringing out wetbacks.\" Under this practice,\nMexican illegal aliens were returned to Mexico, if only\ntemporarily, and subsequently recruited and returned under\ncontract with employers in the United States. With the\nconclusion of Operation Wetback, the apprehension of size-\nable numbers of illegal aliens along the border fell signi-\nficantly until the termination of the Bracero Program in\n- 71 -\nDecember of 1964. For the period following Operation\nWetback, 1956-65, total apprehensions averaged less than\n50,000 annually.\nThe Contemporary Problem\nThe forces which created and sustained the \"Bracero\"\nprogram continue to persist. There continues to be an\neconomic demand induced by some employers in the United\nStates for Mexican workers. That demand is being met by\n12/\ncommuters\nand illegal aliens.\nDuring recent years, along with the high population\ngrowth rate, there has been a major movement of people\nwithin Mexico from rural areas into Mexico City and\nnorthern border towns. Mexico City, for example, 15 to\n20 years ago had a population of approximately 1-1/2\nmillion. It has now burgeoned to an estimated 10-13\nmillion.\nConditions in the U.S. border towns appear to be\nparticularly relevant. Economic conditions there are un-\nfavorable, unemployment being estimated in the 30 to 40\npercent range, and wages at the subsistence level. While\nthere is variance from town to town for those employed,\nwages are never more than one-third the minimum in the\nUnited States.\n12/ In December 1975 there were about 54,000 commuters\nworking legally in the United States, 45,000 of whom were\nfrom Mexico.\n- 72 -\nProspects of available employment, of course, are the\nmajor attraction drawing illegal workers into the United\nStates. Migration by the Mexican is also enhanced by the\nBracero experiences of friends and relatives and by ties of\ncultural affinity existing for many generations between\nMexican-Americans (Chicanos) and Mexicans. Although\ndivergent political and economic realities on either side\nof the border have often caused antagonistic feelings\nbetween these two groups, mutually shared cultural values,\nincluding a common language, remain.\nTraditionally, illegal Mexican migration was a\nrelatively localized situation. It is now spreading far\nfrom the border to those areas that were settled in the\nearly part of this century by immigrants from Mexico such\nas Chicago, Denver, Detroit, Kansas City and St. Louis.\nIn addition, current migration is much more heavily\ninstitutionalized than that of the past. A significant\nnumber of professions, agencies, and individuals live off\nof promoting migration to the United States. Some\nexamples would be border-town taxi companies and mini-buses\nthat make the run to Chicago, San Francisco, Denver,\nDallas, and other cities, forever soliciting a full comple-\nment of passengers, including women, children, and old folks,\nas well as \"tourists\" and \"shoppers\" whose request for a\n- 73 -\nvisitor's visa has been turned down by American consuls;\nthe travel agencies that sell cut-rate tourist excursions\nby air direct to the United States or via Puerto Rico or\nCanada; the coyotes and enganchistas whose longstanding\nbusiness has been to deliver truckloads and busloads of\ngullible Mexican jobseekers from the interior of Mexico\nto border towns; smuggler rings, involving guides, drivers,\ninnkeepers, labor agencies, job foremen, fabricators of\nfalse documents, and the like; and certain predatory lawyers,\nimmigrant consultants, and public notaries, who work\nimmigrant hardship cases.\nThere is ready accessibility to the United States\nacross our 2,000 mile border which makes policing very\ndifficult. Late in 1974, about 85 percent of the 1,600\nperson Border Patrol force was assigned to that border,\nleaving the interior relatively unpoliced. As a result,\nif the Mexican alien now successfully penetrates the border\nregion, he is essentially \"home free.\" The very openness,\nfreedom of movement, absence of controls, and physical size\nof the United States and the heterogeneity of the population\nmake it relatively easy for undocumented migrants to remain\nundetected. Escaping detection is substantially enhanced\nby the lack of risk or cost for the employer hiring illegal\nworkers. Although it is against the law for an alien to\n- 74 -\nenter illegally or remain illegally, it is not against the\nlaw for an employer to hire an undocumented worker.\nNormally, if migration is permanent, the sending\ncountry loses some of its productive workers. However,\nin the case of Mexico where population levels, aspirations,\nand infrastructure development are in disequilibrium, any\nMexican sense of loss may be many years in the future. In\naddition to relieving population pressure through the\nsafety valves of illegal and legal migration, the favorable\neffects on international balances of payment for Mexico\nfrom remittances by migrants to their families are consid-\nerable.\nOther Countries\nThe Mexican problem involves surreptitious entry around\ndesignated ports of entry across our common land border.\nRecently a newer, sometimes less obvious migration of illegal\naliens from a number of Caribbean, Central American and\nAsian countries has begun to create a more complex\nsituation. It involves, for the most part, persons coming\nthrough ports of entry documented as visitors and students,\nwho then violate the terms of their admission by overstaying\nand/or taking employment. As screening for such entrants\nincreases, these persons are turning to any number of\nfraudulent devices in order to gain entry to this country.\n- 75 -\nAlthough not entirely accurate because the categories\noverlap to some extent, non-Mexican illegals are referred\nto as visa abusers whereas Mexican illegals are known as\nEWI's (Entry Without Inspection). As discussed in Chapter\nII the source countries of visa abusers share many character-\nistics in common with Mexico. However the different means\nby which the two groups enter pose significantly different,\ndifficult enforcement problems.\n- 76 -\nB.\nPRESENT ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM\nThe task of preventing the illegal migration of people\ninto the country falls primarily to the Immigration and\nNaturalization Service (INS). This agency is aided in its\nprevention efforts by the State Department which is respon-\nsible for the issuance of visas overseas. A number of other\nagencies' activities, to a lesser extent, impact on enforce-\nment efforts aimed at illegal aliens. These activities\ngenerally involve actions relating to control over such\npersons once they are in the country. These entities are:\nthe Wage and Hour Enforcement Division of the Department of\nLabor, the U.S. Customs Service, the Internal Revenue Service,\nand the Social Security Administration.\nIn enforcing the nation's immigration laws, the pre-\nvention of illegal entry is of paramount importance to INS\nand involves almost 40 percent of its personnel. Prevention\nis carried on through two activities: inspections at ports\nof entry and maintenance of a border patrol between entry\nsites. Inspection activities are conducted at numerous points\nof entry along our international borders as well as at\ndesignated airports and seaports. The law requires that each\nalien seeking admission to the United States present himself\nto an immigration officer who determines whether such a\nperson is admissible based on 31 categories of exclusion.\n- 77 -\nThe U.S. Customs Service also performs inspection for\nimmigration purposes according to a cross-designation\nauthority. In FY 75, 790,232 persons (o.003%) were denied\n13\n/\nentry\nout of a total of 259 million inspections. If\na person does not present himself at a port-of-entry for\ninspection, it falls to the Border Patrol to prevent the\nentry.\nAuthority\nDefinition and designation of immigration officers are\nprovided by statute and regulation. The Immigration and\nNationality Act of 1952 provides wide ranging authorities:\n\"\nany officer or employee of the Service authorized\nunder regulations prescribed by the Attorney General shall\nhave power without warrant\nTo interrogate any alien or person believed\nto be an alien as to his right to be or to remain\nin the United States;\nTo arrest any alien who in his presence or\nview is entering or attempting to enter the\nUnited States in violation of any law or regu-\nlation made in pursuance of law regulating the\nadmission, exclusion or expulsion of aliens;\nTo arrest any alien in the United States if\nhe has reason to believe that the alien so\narrested is in the United States in violation of\nany such law or regulation, and is likely to\nescape before a warrant can be obtained for his\narrest;\n13 / This number includes so-called \"turnbacks,\" persons\nwho approach the port and do not have proper documentation\nat that time.\n- 78 -\nTo make arrests for felonies which have\nbeen committed and which are cognizable under\nany law of the United States regulating the\nadmission, exclusion or expulsion of aliens\nif he has reason to believe that the person\nso arrested is guilty of such felony and if\nthere is likelihood of the person escaping\nbefore a warrant can be obtained for his\narrest;\nWithin a reasonable distance from any\nexternal boundary of the United States, to\nboard and search for aliens any vessel,\nwithin the territorial waters of the United\nStates and any railway car, aircraft, convey-\nance or vehicle;\nWithin a distance of twenty-five miles\nfrom any external boundary, to have access to\nprivate lands, but not dwellings, for the\npurpose of patrolling the border to prevent\nthe illegal entry of aliens into the United\nStates. \"\nAdditional authority to board and search conveyances\nis contained in section 235 of the act, which states:\n\"Immigration officers are hereby authorized and empowered\nto board and search any vessel aircraft, railway car, or\nother conveyance, or vehicle in which they believe aliens\nare being brought into the United States.' \"\nTactics and Procedures\nBorder Patrol officers assigned to this duty are the\nprimary interception force which is responsible for pre-\nventing and/or detecting illegal entry and alien smuggling.\nThere is a wide spectrum of activities which are performed\nas part of the line watch including the physical patrolling\n- 79 -\nof the border, surveillance at known crossing points, tower\nwatch, \"sign cutting,\" observation by aircraft, and respond-\ning to sensor network alarms. This first line of defense\nat the immediate border is the foundation and precondition\nof successful enforcement. Since experience has shown that\ninterdiction is most efficiently and effectively performed\nat the immediate border, the Border Patrol has always\nallocated a majority of its manpower and resources to the\nareas of the immediate border.\nThere are also several supplemental tactics which\nare used to backup the line watch.\n1. Traffic checks are aimed at the illegal\nentrant who has successfully crossed the border\nand is presumably enroute to an interior\ndestination. Both permanent and non-permanent\ntraffic checks have been employed; permanent\ncheck points are used on major highways while\nnon-permanent are selectively placed on different\nroads leading from and through the border area.\n2. Farm and ranch checks are designed to\nlocate and apprehend those illegal entrants who\nhave penetrated the INS \"first line of defense\"\nand successfully obtained jobs. This tactic\nnormally has a high apprehension rate since\n- 80 -\nillegal entrants are often found in groups at\ntheir places of employment.\n3. City patrol attempts to locate the\nillegal entrant who has been able to reach one\nof the metropolitan areas along the border.\nIt includes checking factories, businesses,\nhotels, jails and other potential locations.\n4. Transportation checks are targeted\nagainst the successful entrant who is attempting\nto flee the immediate border area by common\ncarrier. They include the questioning of suspected\naliens at bus stations and at train and aircraft\nterminals. They also include checking freight\ntrains and freight yards.\n5. Secondary patrol is the tactic employed\nby the backup stations. It includes \"sign cutting\"\nand highway and road patrol.\n6. Boat patrol is conducted along the coastal\nborders and on inland waterways.\nThe relative effectiveness of these tactics is demon-\nstrated in the large numbers of illegal entrants who are\napprehended at entry or shortly thereafter. Line watch is\nthe most productive and efficient since it results in the\ninterdiction of the largest number of illegal entrants\n- 81 -\nimmediately at the border. It is also the least disruptive\nor objectionable tactic from the community relations\npoint of view for citizens or resident aliens of Hispanic\nbackground.\nOnce an illegal entrant has gained access to the\n\"interior\" of the country, the job of detecting such a\nperson falls to the investigative arm of the Service. For\nthose persons who have not entered surreptitiously over the\nborders, it is the investigator force who must locate an\noverstaying visitor, a student not attending school or\nworking full-time, or any alien who has violated the\ncriminal provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act.\nInvestigators are located mainly in major urban centers\nwith over half of the investigators located in our three\nlargest cities, Chicago, Los Angeles and New York. The\nbasic technique utilized is to follow specific leads either\non individual cases of suspected illegal aliens or informa-\ntion on known congregating points of illegal aliens such as\ncertain work places.\nOnce an illegal alien is apprehended, the massive number\nof immigration law violators apprehended by INS prevents the\napplication of the full force of the law, i.e., prosecution\nin the courts or formal deportation within the INS adminis-\ntrative process. In FY 1974, there were 741, 369 violations\n- 82 -\nwhich could be entertained for prosecution; over 92\npercent were closed by blanket or general waiver.\nFor this reason, a less complicated repa-\ntriation procedure is used. Immigration statutes and\nimplementing regulations provide for illegal aliens to\n\"voluntarily depart\" for their country under certain\ncircumstances, and INS uses this procedure extensively\nto expedite the removal of illegal aliens from the\ncountry. \"Repeat\" or aggravated offenders and criminal\nviolators are held for prosecution and/or deportation\nproceedings.\nThere are a number of factors about this system which\ndeserve comment. First of all, the inherent nature of the\nsituation places emphasis on the detection and prevention\nof illegal entry. The efficiency with which the Service\ncan apprehend large numbers of illegal entrants in the\nimmediate border area contributes to the disproportionate\nnumbers of Mexican nationals that are reflected in the\nannual apprehension statistics. It is also the major factor\nthat influences the current placement of resources. This\nemphasis, for example, finds about 40% of the Service's total\nresources being devoted to enforcement in our Southwest --\nactivities that are primarily preventive in nature. Over\n1700 of the Border Patrol's 2000 officers are located in the\n- 83 -\ngreater Southwest area. To some extent, then, this deploy-\nment defines the problem -- particularly in terms of the\nnumbers of illegal aliens that are located each year.\nA second factor is the difficulty in apprehending\nillegal aliens in interior locations such as our larger\nmetropolitan areas. The illegal alien, once in these\nlocations, tends to become an invisible person. All tactics\nthat are used to ferret out and apprehend such persoms must\nbe weighed in light of their impact upon individual liberties\nof all persons of foreign descent as well as the disruptive\nconsequences they may have on the communities involved.\nEven if an illegal alien is apprehended at areas away from\nthe border, detention is hindered by a lack of facilities\nand by cost.\nA third, and sometimes overriding factor, is the often\ndilatory tactics that illegals employ in an effort to remain\nin the country and gain equity once they have arrived. A\nhigher percentage of illegals located in interior locales\nutilize the hearing process than those aliens along the\nMexican Border. With its present resources the Service\ncould not possibly conduct a hearing for every alien appre-\nhended without seriously affecting its overall enforcement\nposture.\n- 84 -\nThus, with resources of 8,800 personnel and $210\nmillion in FY 1976, the Service places its highest priority\non prevention activities. Despite this emphasis, a force\nof some 1700 patrolmen in our Southern Border can mean only\nslightly over 200 on any one shift. This results in one patrolman\nfor every 10 miles of the 2000 mile long border. Of almost 800,00\n14\n/\napprehensions\nper year recently, over 700,000 were\nMexicans, the vast majority of whom were apprehended in the\nimmediate border area.\nCourt Decisions\nRecently, the courts have taken a more active role in\nareas affecting the operations of the Service.\nIn Almeida-Sanchez V. U.S., 413 U.S. 266, the Supreme\nCourt held that the warrantless search of an automobile at\na location other than the border or the functional equivalent\nthereof, made without probable cause or consent following a\nroving patrol stop, violated the Fourth Amendment of the\nConstitution.\nThe Supreme Court, in United States V. Brignoni-Ponce,\nNo. 74-114 held that a roving patrol stop of a vehicle away\nfrom the immediate border area, and the questioning of its\n14/ An apprehension is an event for statistical purposes,\nnot a person. Thus 800,000 apprehensions probably involves\nless than 800,000 individuals, as many illegal aliens are\napprehended more than once each year.\n- 85 -\noccupants merely because they appeared to be of Mexican\ndescent, violated the Fourth Amendment.\nThe Court explained that before any such stop could\nbe adjudged lawful, the officer must be aware of specific\n15/\narticulable facts supporting a reasonable suspicion that\nthere are illegal aliens in the vehicle. The Court added\nthat while Mexican appearance was relevant, standing alone,\nit was not sufficient justification for the stop.\nIn United States V. Ortiz, No. 73-2050, the Supreme\nCourt ruled that a checkpoint search of a vehicle trunk,\naway from the border, without probable cause or consent,\nviolated the Fourth Amendment.\nIn United States V. Martinez-Fuerte, No. 74-1560,\nthe Supreme Court held that the Border Patrol may routinely\nstop vehicles at established checkpoints reasonably located\naway from the border in absence of suspicion that particular\nvehicle contains aliens. Vehicle searches, however, require\nprobable cause or consent.\nIn areas away from the border and its functional equi-\nvalents, a vehicle may be stopped by the patrol and the\noccupants questioned briefly pursuant to a determination by\n15 / In this sense, articulable facts refers to a combination\nof circumstances that prompt an officer to stop and query an\nindividual. These circumstances must be clearly explained\nand sufficient to convince a reasonable person that such a\ncheck was justifiable.\n- 86 -\nthe officer that there is a reasonable suspicion of illegal\naliens in the vehicle which can be supported by specific\narticulable facts.\nWhenever a vehicle is to be searched in any but a \"border\nsearch\" situation, the officer must be prepared to articulate\na clear determination of probable cause, or the stated\nconsent of the driver or owner. This is applicable to both\ncheckpoint and roving patrol stops. To comply with the\ndecisions in these cases, the Service revamped some of its\nMexican border area highway operations; a case in point was\n16/\nthe elimination of stopping cars by roving patrols.\nIn a related development, several district courts are\nurging that the principle of articulate reasonable suspicion\nbe extended to pedestrian situations routinely encountered\nin such enforcement functions as the stopping and questioning\nof persons on the streets, in transportation terminals, in\nother public places, and commercial establishments.\nOn July 29, 1975, a preliminary injunction was issued\nagainst the Immigration and Naturalization Service in the\ncase of Illinois Migration Council V. Pilliod (case as yet\nunreported.) Under the terms of the injunction the Service\n16/ The checkpoint at San Clemente and several others were closed\nfor 15 months following an adverse decision of the Ninth Circuit\nCourt of Appeals. However, they were reopened when the Supreme\nCourt ruled in U.S. V. Martinez-Fuerte et al. that the routine\nstopping of vehicles for brief questioning of occupants at reason-\nably located Border Patrol checkpoints is constitutional. It was\nalso held that such motorists may be selectively referred to\nsecondary areas for further limited inquiry. The Court reasoned\nthat \" the public interest in making such stops outweighs the\nconstitutionally protected interest of the private citizen.\"\n- 87 -\nis barred, in the North District of Illinois, from stopping,\ndetaining, arresting or interrogating persons of Mexican\nancestry of Spanish surname in the absence of a warrant,\nor reasonable suspicion that the person is an alien illegally\nin the United States. At this time, INS has decided to limit\nall area control operations throughout the country to working\nspecific leads and complaints.\nThe effect of these decisions has been to place even\ngreater emphasis on preventing entry in the first place.\nVisa Screening\nThe issuance of visas was first instituted by a Department\nof State instruction on April 17, 1917, and elaborated in a\njoint order of the Departments of State and Labor on July 26,\n1917. The visa requirement was made statutory by the Immigra-\ntion Act of 1924 and by subsequent legislation, notably the\nImmigration and Nationality Act of 1952.\nUnder the terms of the Act of 1924 a dual-check system\nof determining the admissibility of aliens desiring to enter\nthe United States was made a part of the statutues. Consular\nofficers of the United States Foreign Service, responsible\nto the Department of State, were charged with the responsibility\nof issuing visas to alien applicants abroad who had proved\ntheir admissibility under the immigration laws, while represent-\natives of the Bureau of Immigration, then a part of the Department\nof Labor, were required to verify the aliens' admissibility upon\ntheir arrival at a port of entry of the United States.\n- 88 -\nThe consular officer's authority under the law to issue\na visa is not reviewable, and is unlike that of the\nimmigration inspector whose judgment regarding inadmissibility\nmust be supported by a finding of excludability on the part\nof an immigration judge. The discretion of a consular officer\nplaces him in a unique and somewhat invidious position for\npreventing mala fide visa applicants from coming to this\ncountry.\nIn recent years successive Presidents have stressed the\nimportance of facilitating international travel. The pro-\ncedures for the issuance of visas to persons wishing to visit\nthe United States have been made as simple as possible and\nevery effort is made to expedite the necessary action.\nDuring the last ten years, the issuance of such visas\nhas gone from under 1 million to over 3 million -- an increase\nexceeding 200 percent. However, the number of officers\nissuing visas -- both immigrant and nonimmigrant -- has\ndecreased slightly during this same period. At the present\ntime, there are about 360 full-time Foreign Service officers\nsupported by 1000 indigenous personnel (i.e. Foreign Service\nlocals) handling visa work. All in all, the cost of maintain-\ning this function came to $35.6 million in FY 1975.\n- 89 -\nC.\nINTERAGENCY COOPERATION\nOne of the mandates of the Domestic Council Committee\nis to assess the cooperative relationships among various\nagencies having responsibility for some aspect of illegal\nimmigration. The implication of such an approach is that\nmore can be done without: (1) new legal authorities, or\n(2) significant increases in resources. The most recent\nprecedent for this approach has its basis in legislation\npassed in 1972 which required cooperation between the\nSocial Security Administration and the Immigration and\nNaturalization Service. One can properly regard this\narrangement as an example of what is involved in such\nundertakings. The experience must be viewed from the\nstandpoint of what structural deficiencies and competing\nconsiderations have been manifested, and how these\ndifficulties should be overcome in any future proposals.\n1972 Social Security Amendments\nSince the overriding incentive for illegal aliens to\nenter or remain in the United States is the desire to work,\nand since employment opportunities for the vast majority\nof workers is limited to those who possess social security\nnumbers, in the past much debate centered on improvements\nin social security card issuance. Historically, the INS\nhad sought to preclude access to a social security number\nby illegals, while the Social Security Administration (SSA)\n- 90 -\nhad resisted becoming part of a control system over aliens.\nThe SSA's traditional view has been that citizenship\nis not an issue in determining eligibility for SS benefits.\nRather, the purpose of SS legislation is to insure that with\ncertain specified exceptions, all remunerative work is\ncovered by the appropriate provisions of law. Further,\nsince there is no specific exclusion in the law for aliens\nworking illegally, they are considered to be covered. The\npossession of a social security number in no way conveys\nan authority for a person to work, yet in fact, the social\nsecurity card serves as a work permit.\nPrior to the amendment of the Social Security Act in 1972,\napplicants for a SS number could obtain one on the spot in\nSS district offices. The foregoing was well known by illegal\naliens and it would probably be accurate to guess that the\ngreat majority of illegals today have valid SS cards despite\nrecent changes in the application procedure.\nThe 1972 Social Security Act Amendments required the\nSecretary of HEW to \"take affirmative measures to assure\nthat social security account numbers will, to the maximum\nextent practicable, be assigned to all members of appropriate\ngroups or categories of individuals.\" As originally\nenvisioned, this provision was intended to exclude aliens\nwho were prohibited to work from receiving a social security\naccount number. However, many institutions, both within\nthe government and outside it, now use the social security\n- 91 -\naccount number as an identifying mechanism. The SSA has\nbeen somewhat helpless in trying to stop or reverse this\nprocess. In the arrangements worked out between INS and\nSSA to implement the provisions of the 1972 amendments,\nthe procedures called for persons applying for a card, who\nhad foreign birth, to prove their status with regard to the\nimmigration and nationality laws. If they needed a card but\nwere not authorized to work, their account number was\nannotated to that effect. If earnings were reported to\nthe account, SSA referred the information to INS.\nDuring the initial months of the new SSA application\nprocedure, an average of 500 applications a day were referred\nto INS for checking; in all, a total of about 40,000 applica-\ntions were referred in the period March 1974 to February\n1975. Following the implementation of the Privacy Act of\n17/\n1974 , these referrals fell off sharply; today they\naverage about 10 - 20 a week. At present, whenever an\napplicant is hesitant or reluctant to provide proof of\ncitizenship or legal alien status he is informed that the\ninformation could be referred to INS for an illegal alien\ncheck. If the individual withdraws the application, all\n17 / The Privacy Act does not cover \"illegal aliens, so there\nare no restrictions regarding exchange of information between\nvarious agencies concerning such individuals. However, the\nSSA does not know whether they are dealing with a legal\nresident or not. Since the Privacy Act covers legal resident\naliens, the SSA is carefully revising its regulations to\ncover exchanges of information with INS.\n- 92 -\ndata already submitted by the alien are returned and no\nreferral is made to the INS. Only after complying with\nthe provisions of the Privacy Act and the individual's\nexpressed desire to pursue the application are doubtful\ncases referred to INS and even then the SSA will wait just\none week before processing the application.\nFollowing the March 1974 implementation of regulations\nand before the Privacy Act became effective, the data on\nall SS applications abandoned following a request for\nproof of status was routinely passed to INS. There were\nsome 39,000 applications abandoned under these conditions\nin the period March 1974 to February 1975. The SSA control\nsystem cannot detect the use of someone else's valid SS\nnumber by an illegal alien or anyone else for that matter.\nSSA records are essentially confidential pursuant to the\nPrivacy Act. While illegal aliens are not covered by the\nPrivacy Act, a prudent bureaucrat would be careful not to\nmake a mistake involving a U.S. citizen or a legal alien\nresident. Concern over the requirements of this legislation\nhas essentially brought the cooperative effort to a standstill.\nWhile SSA continues to screen applicants and does annotate\naccounts, very little information is being sent to the INS.\nThe one salutary aspect of this program may be in the area\nof abandoned applications which are thought to be indicative\nof deterred ineligible aliens. However, this may not be true\nin light of the fact that a number of abandoned applications\n- 93 -\nturned out to be those of resident legal aliens or citizens\nas a subsequent check with INS revealed. It was this develop-\nment which prompted the SSA to stop making referrals to INS,\nunless the person's permission was received to pursue the\napplication in such a manner.\nDuring the period of March 1974 to February 1975, the\nSSA issued 23,000 cards for which the account was annotated\n\"work prohibited\". One thousand five hundred cases of\nreported earnings were referred to INS for that period.\nThis program has had an uneven history. The following\nproblems exist in the current procedures:\n1.\nThose persons under 18 claiming native birth\nare not required to show any documentation.\nThe SSA did conduct a study to validate this\nexperiment.\n2.\nFor those over 18 who claim citizenship, a\ncheck with INS that only allows seven days for\nturn-around before issuance of a card is not\nrealistic given the volume of work involved in\nsuch processing.\n3.\nThe application form for an SS number only\nrequires a date and place of birth -- it does\nnot require a statement of citizenship or alien\nstatus. As the system works now, there is an\ninherent bias which favors the false claimant.\nAlthough the card carries a warning regarding\nthose who willfully furnish false information,\nthe SSA does not prosecute illegal aliens offering\nfalse information to obtain a number. They are\nprepared to prosecute those who intend to defraud\nthe system of benefits; however, they doubt that\nU.S. Attorneys would be willing to prosecute just\nfraudulent applicants.\n4.\nThere is a minimum time delay of six months before\nearnings to an annotated account will be reported\n- 94 -\nto INS. The INS places these investigations\nin a low priority due to the time delay involved.\nUntil such time as new regulations are written and\npromulgated by SSA, the impact of this cooperative effort\nwill be minimal. However, the following possibilities\nshould be considered to improve the quality and usefulness\nof information exchange:\n1.\nThe SSA has collected its information on abandoned\napplications centrally. The SSA should conduct a\nstudy of this information. One area to analyze\nis the particular districts which have the largest\nnumber of abandoned applications as compared with\nthose areas that are perceived to be the locales\nof large numbers of illegal aliens.\n2.\nINS must give greater attention to working leads\non annotated accounts with reported earnings. Once\na test of these leads' workability has been completed,\na judgment can be made about their worthiness for\nfuture efforts.\n3.\nINS could supply information to SSA on prospective\noverstays, and SSA would compare this data with\nits data on annotated accounts with reported\nearnings.\n4.\nThe SSA could, within its own system, compare data\non employers with reporting problems with its data\non annotated accounts with reported earnings, and\nmake referrals to INS.\n5.\nINS could refer to SSA the names of employers who\nare thought to be hiring illegal aliens. SSA, in\nturn, could compare this information with either\nits data on annotated accounts with reported\nearnings or its data on employers with reporting\nproblems.\nAll of these possibilities would have to be tested.\nTheir success would depend upon the relative costs involved\nin carrying on such efforts on a large scale. However, they\noffer the possibility for improved information exchange in\nthe context of these agencies' current capabilities.\n- 95 -\nThe experience with the SSA/INS cooperative efforts\nis instructive in a number of respects. First and foremost,\nfuture policymakers should be extremely wary of drawing\nagencies whose central purpose is not enforcement into\narrangements which require them to act in ways contrary\nto their historical nature. The SSA has always seen itself\nas a service agency, and thus has been slow to adjust to\nthe requirements inherent in the amendments of 1972.\nSecondly, when such arrangements are undertaken, proper\nconsideration must be given to the funding implications\ninvolved. This is not always a case of additional personnel.\nThirdly, the success of these efforts can turn on nothing\nmore than how such agencies collect and organize information.\nIf there is not sufficient compatability and management\nattention to information gaps and procedural difficulties,\nsuch arrangements are probably doomed to failure. And\nfinally, all these factors would indicate that it is far\nmore desirable to foster cooperative relationships between\nagencies whose operations are essentially enforcement or\ncompliance in nature, and thus share a common interest in\nrelated problems. In this sense, the operations and\nlegislative mandate of the Bureau of Security and Consular\nAffairs, the Internal Revenue Service, and the Wage and\nHour Enforcement Division, are more akin to such endeavors.\n- 96 -\nDepartment of State\nResponsibility for bringing persons into this country\neither as immigrants or nonimmigrants is shared between the\nImmigration and Naturalization Service and the Department\nof State.\nA crucial element in improving our ability to cope\nwith illegal migration rests with efforts that deal with\nthe problem at the source. Prevention at this stage is not\nonly cost effective, but in many ways, the most humane\napproach. Little coordinated study has been made of the\ncharacteristics of nonimmigrant applicant motivations and goals\nor of whether our procedures contribute to fraud. Insuffi-\ncient effort has been made to inform host governments of\nthe extent and nature of the illegal entry problem. There\nhas been little exploration of systems for dealing efficiently\nwith large numbers of persons. There has been little\nrecognition of the contradiction between effective informa-\ntion programs about the United States and curbing illegal\nimmigration. In the absence of such systematic guidance,\nconsuls engaged in visa activities have developed their own\nmethods of coping with local pressures and making accurate\njudgments. Such methods are not sufficient.\nDespite all the time pressures involved in such work,\nthe rise in workloads, the attendant resource situation, and\nthe sometimes sensitive nature of this work, the real source\nof difficulty in improving the overall effectiveness of the\n- 97\nvisa issuing function lies with the priority assigned to\nthese activities within the Department of State. In fact,\ncertain management considerations may work in a contrary\nmanner. For example, since there are subsequent time con-\nsuming procedural activities to be accomplished in the\nevent of a visa refusal, at busy posts there is a built in\nbias to find in favor of the applicant as often as specific\ncase circumstances makes possible. And if this is coupled\nwith management's not giving due consideration to the extra\neffort involved in denials when assigning staffing levels for\nhigh fraud posts, there may be a reluctance at such posts\n18/\nto increase denial rates to more realistic levels.\nThere is increasing evidence that illegal immigration\nand its causes will be a major consideration in our relations\nwith a number of developing nations for the foreseeable\nfuture. New policy guidelines on immigration-related matters\nas well as specific action proposals to foster new objectives\naimed at relieving the causes and incidence of illegal\nimmigration are needed. Visa issuance and fraud in certain\ncountries must be given higher priority within the Department\n18/ Since it is specifically intended to be an instrument\ngoverning and controlling the movement of aliens into the\nUnited States, the Immigration and Nationality Act assigns\nresponsibility for visa issuance to \"a consular officer.\"\nHowever, management considerations have also resulted in the\ndiminution of individual visa officer responsibility. To\nspeed up and simplify the visa issuing process many posts,\nincluding those in Mexico, now issue visitor visas which\noften carry the facsimile signature of someone other than\nthe responsible visa officer.\n- 98 -\nof State SO that only for the most compelling political con-\nsiderations should action against visa fraud not be vigorously\npressed or made a country priority. Country-by-country visa\nabuse experience must be considered in developing new guide-\nlines. The following are specific recommendations which can\nbe taken to ameliorate the problem of illegal immigration.\nSome of them require giving higher attention and priority to\nrelationships and programs which already exist. In some other\ninstances, they involve making current initiatives more com-\nprehensive in nature. And finally, there are some new approaches\nof a pilot nature.\n1. Policy\na. The President should issue instructions to ambassadors\nof major sending countries to accord the highest priority to visa\nissuance functions and to reaffirm and emphasize that Chiefs of\nConsular Sections utilize the widest latitude and discretion in\ntheir areas of responsibility. These instructions should point\nout that visa issuance and refusal are delegated by law solely\nto the consular officer.\nb. High fraud posts must be given high management attention\nwith respect to personnel and budgetary priorities to, inter alia,\npermit the use of foreign service officers in the initial screen-\ning of applicants.\nC. Prospective students' financial capability for the\nduration of the course of study, applicability of the training\nto future employment possibilities in the native land, and\ngeneral skills at the time of application should be given care-\nful consideration in the issuance of student visas.\n- 99 -\n2. Operations\na. All high fraud posts as well as potential problem\nconsulates must have access to a centralized computer\n19/\ncapability.\nb. In identifying developing trends and potential\nproblem areas, the Visa Office should have the benefit of\na management information system. Such a system would,\ninter alia, monitor use of multiple entry visas at high\nfraud posts, a practice which may not be justified.\nC. Referrals are the means by which the Ambassador\nor one of his subordinates requests a consular officer to\naccord \"special consideration\" to certain visa applicants.\nWith regard to referrals, each post should be required to\nkeep a careful system of documentation describing the nature\nof the recommendation, its importance and its status if a\nvisa is granted on such a basis. To the maximum extent\npracticable, all persons receiving a visa on such a basis\nshould be required to appear before a consular officer\nupon the return to the country placing responsibility upon\nthe individual Consulate to prove that the procedure does not\ncompromise the visa issuance process.\nd. All high fraud posts should have investigative\nstaffs to bolster the screening and interviewing process.\n19/ This capability would enable posts to check applicants\nagainst various \"lookout\" lists. In addition, the Depart-\nment of State keeps information for two years on all\napplicants who are denied a visa.\n- 100 -\n3. Department of Justice/Department of State Cooperation\na. To create a more formalized communications process\nbetween the two agencies involved in controlling the entry\nof aliens, the Bureau of Security and Consular Affairs and\nthe Immigration and Naturalization Service should hold\nregularly scheduled meetings, perhaps as often as once a\nmonth. Meetings should not be confined to central office\npersonnel alone, but should be extended to the field for\npersonnel involved in fraud control and matters of mutual\ninterest.\nb. The Immigration and Naturalization Service and the\nBureau of Security and Consular Affairs should work more\nclosely in the development of fraud profiles for illegal\nalien sending countries.\nC. Fraud information should increasingly be stressed\nin the immigrant as well as nonimmigrant areas. Problems\nin nonimmigrant visa issuance become apparent in the practices\nand circumstances of applicants for immigrant status.\nd. INS and State should seek more systematic use of\ninformation on all persons denied admission as well as all\nvisa abusers who are apprehended.\ne. Visa issuing officers should make use of notations\nand other information on the visa as a means of aiding\nimmigration inspectors in their determination about an\n- 101 -\napplicant's intentions as well as whether the individual\npresenting himself for admission is the valid holder of\nthe documentation presented.\n4. Actions Within Countries\na. Each embassy with visa fraud problems should enlist\nthe host country's political cooperation. This might\ninclude:\n-- Development projects aimed at areas that have\nbeen identified as areas of out-migration.\n-- Actions taken within the government to dis-\ncourage the abuse of documents and represen-\ntation.\n-- Host country cooperation in improving the\noverall quality of documentation.\n-- Licensing of travel agents and others who\ntraffic in fraudulent documents.\n-- Vigorous prosecution of fraud cases involving\nthe assigning of indigenous personnel to such\ncases.\nb. The U. S. Information Service should sensitize the\nindigenous populace to the problems of illegal immigration\nand the unscrupulous persons who visit hardship on their\nvictims. Specifically, an organized campaign should be\ndeveloped to:\n- 102 -\n-- Inform the press of widespread abuses of\npersons who seek middlemen in an effort to\nobtain a visa.\n- Encourage academics to conduct research on\nthe causes of migration within the country\nand out of it.\nC. The Immigration and Naturalization Service with\nthe State Department should take steps to establish closer\nliaison with the immigration authorities of other countries\nto gain better use of departure control systems including\nexchange of information to detect fraudulent documents or\nimposters.\nInternal Revenue Service\nOther cooperative efforts are already underway. The\nInternal Revenue Service is presently conducting two programs\nin the illegal alien area. One program is aimed at appre-\nhended illegal aliens and the other is aimed at the employers\nof illegal aliens.\n1. Apprehended Illegal Aliens 90 Day Test\nThe test program which ran from March 4, 1974 to June 7,\n1974, was conducted in San Diego, Dallas, Chicago, and New\nYork City, in conjunction with INS.\nThis test provided that for 90 days, one Revenue Officer\nor one Revenue Representative in each of the participating\ndistricts would spend an entire workday at the local INS\n- 103 -\ndetention facility where apprehended illegal aliens are\nprocessed to determine potential tax liability. The results\nwere:\nTotal No. of Aliens Interviewed\n1,699\nTotal No. of Returns Secured\n1,090\nTotal Amount of Tax Assessed\n$247,696\nTotal Amount of Tax Collected\n$168,469\nSince this test indicated a high frequency of noncompliance\namong apprehended illegal aliens, though of relatively modest\namounts (about $140) on the average, an on-going program was\ndeveloped. The new program, with basically the same guidelines\nas the test, was implemented on April 12, 1976, in the 15 cities\nwhere INS processes the highest volume of illegal aliens. They\nare:\nChicago, Illinois;\nChula Vista, California;\nDallas, Texas;\nDenver, Colorado;\nEl Centro, California;\nEl Paso, Texas;\nMiami, Florida;\nNewark, New Jersey;\nNew Orleans, Louisiana;\nNew York, New York;\nSan Antonio, Texas;\nSeattle, Washington;\n- 104 -\nSwanton, Vermont;\nWashington, D. C.; and\nSan Francisco, California.\n2.\nEmployers of Illegal Aliens\nAnother test began on October 30, 1975 and will be\ncompleted by June 30, 1976. It is being conducted in seven\nareas: Baltimore, Chicago, Los Angeles, Dallas, Manhattan,\nCleveland, and Jacksonville.\nWith the joint cooperation of IRS, Immigration and\nNaturalization Service (INS) and the Social Security Adminis-\ntration (SSA), it involves securing the payment of withholding\ntaxes by employers of illegal aliens.\nWhere a common employer is shown for a specified number\nof employees (five in some districts, two in others) in INS\napprehension records, the records will be forwarded to the\nparticipating IRS district office. IRS will determine whether\nthe employer has filed Form 941, employer's quarterly report.\nIf no return has been filed, a revenue officer calls on the\nemployer to ensure that all federal tax obligations have\nbeen and are being met by the employer. If a return has been\nfiled, a \"request for social security earnings information\"\nwill be forwarded to SSA and one of the following procedures\nwill be completed:\na. If the alien's wages were properly recorded,\nthe case will be closed.\n- 105 -\nb. If the wages were not reported, the case will\nbe referred to the Audit Division for possible field con-\ntact by an agent for eventual audit if warranted. If the\nwages were under-reported and/or a possibility of fraud\nexists, the case will be forwarded to the Intelligence\nDivision for possible field contact by a special agent.\nStatistics for this test have not been compiled at this\ntime. However, should the statistics for the test prove to\nbe encouraging, consideration would be given to continuing\nthis program on an expanded basis.\nDepartment of Labor\nSince the passage of the Fair Labor Standards Act in\n1938, the Department of Labor has been quite successful in\ndeveloping a relatively high level of compliance in the area\nof wage and hour enforcement. In fact, it represents one of\nthe government's most successful regulation attempts. However,\na rather serious problem of backlogs has developed in the last\ntwo years for a number of the laws that are administered by\nthe Wage and Hour Division partially due to the passage of\na number of new pieces of legislation. since 1960, which\nextend the Department of Labor's responsibilities. This has\nbeen coupled with a stable budgetary situation yielding only\nminimal increases in compliance investigators for wage and\nhour enforcement over the past fifteen years or SO. However,\n- 106 -\nwage and hour enforcement is a primary area for increased\nenforcement.\n1. The Farm Labor Contract Registration Act, as\namended December, 1974, contains a provision pro-\nhibiting the knowing employment of illegal aliens.\nA similar provision should be incorporated into all\nother important labor standards' and labor relations'\nlaws, and should be accompanied with commensurate\nincreases in resources for enforcing such provisions.\n2. The INS and Wage and Hour Enforcement Division\nof the Department of Labor jointly should sponsor\na pilot project in a large metropolitan area where\nthere is evidence that substantial numbers of illegal\naliens reside. The greater New York City area is\nan example since there are currently less than 50\ncompliance investigators working there. It would\ninvolve:\n-- Increased and more systematic exchange\nof information.\n-- Mutual targeting of employment establishments.\n--- Priority assignment of personnel in areas\nwhich may be of mutual benefit.\n- 107 -\nInternal Actions: INS\nIn addition to more effective coordination with the\nabove agencies, INS can take steps internally to more\noptimally allocate its resources and improve its ability\nto cope with illegal immigration. Although the Service\nhas sought additional resources, it has also recognized\nthe need to improve current methods of operation. Conse-\nquently, a number of evaluations and consultant studies\nhave been undertaken.\nINS is often buffeted between competing pressures.\nThis competition is markedly shown in the inspection for\nadmission process. At ports of entry, emphasis is frequently\nplaced on speedy facilitation of entry to the detriment of\ncareful screening of applicants. Screening for fraud can\nbe a laborious process and tends to mitigate against facili-\ntation. However, to some extent, this can be overcome by\ncareful staffing, training and motivation of personnel.\nThe Service should not maximize its presence at all ports\nof entry, but instead assign its personnel to critical\nand heavily used points in a manner which deploys them at\npeak traffic times.\nCurrently about 91 percent of all inspections are\nperformed at land border ports and about 65 percent of these\nare along the Southwest border. Illegal entry is detected\nthrough ports along the Southern border eight times as often\n- 108 -\nas at ports along the Northern border. In FY 1974, for\nevery workyear devoted to primary inspection 207 aliens\nwere denied entry on the Northern border and 1,839 aliens\nwere denied entry on the Southwest border. However, only\n23 percent of the inspections workforce is stationed along\nthe Southwest border, while 37 percent of all the inspections\n20/\nworkforce is on the Northern border.\nAlong the border, the Service is also investigating\nthe efficacy of using certain border patrol staffing patterns\nthat involve flooding areas at peak times in an effort to\nmaximize apprehensions. This effort should be coupled with\ncontinuing experiments for improving the configuration and\nplacement of sensor systems.\nFinally, some joint ADP and Telecommunication develop-\nment and sharing between INS, the U. S. Customs Service and\nthe Drug Enforcement Administration has a wide range of\npotential benefits. Some INS and Customs personnel at field\noffices around the country are frequently co-located; the\nuse of remote ADP terminals and the development of a common\ncommunication network could result in significant cost\nsavings. For example, it appears feasible that INS' Alien\nDocumentation, Identification and Telecommunication system\ncould use the existing Customs Service's ADP and communi-\ncation network.\n20/ There are 147 land ports on the U.S.-Canadian border\nand 40 on the U.S.-Mexican border.\n- 109 -\nTherefore, it is recommended that INS:\n1. Develop expanded and ongoing training of supervisory\nand journeyman personnel. This is particularly important\nfor an agency which is undergoing so much change. There\nwill be considerable turnover within INS over the next\ntwo years. Added to the large numbers of new personnel\nreceived in recent budgets are the impending retirements\nbrought about by the Law Enforcement Officers Retirement\nAct.\n2. Continue to place emphasis on evaluation techniques,\nprocess studies and simulation models that offer the\nprospect of improving the current deployment of resources.\nIn striving to achieve this goal, INS should take full\nadvantage of the wide range of technical services that\nare available within the federal government.\n3. Investigate the feasibility of applying alternative\nenforcement techniques. This could include but would\nnot be confined to: expansion of preclearance inspection\noperations abroad, development of specialized investi-\ngative units to combat smuggling, and expanded use of\ninvestigations at overseas posts.\n- 110 -\nD.\nDISINCENTIVES\nWhile further interagency efforts are quite necessary\nand hold promise for improving overall immigration enforce-\nment, such initiatives must be augmented by legislative\nimprovements which seek to diminish the strength of the\npull factors drawing people to enter and remain illegally\nin the U. S. Stronger checks, referred to as disincentives\nare intended to (1) create additional impediments for those\npersons who are contemplating illegal entry or who intend\nto violate their status while in the United States; (2) deny\nvarious benefits to persons who clearly act in circumvention\nof the law; and (3) attempt to lessen the effect of the\nimmigration law where it currently works in a manner contrary\nto its stated purposes. As current conditions exist, there\nare many persons who use their very illegality to gain\nimmigration status and preference under the system. This is\nunfair and tends to undermine the whole immigration system.\nIt is unrealistic to hope that we can be completely\nsuccessful in preventing an alien from entering the United\nStates illegally, or remaining in violation of law if he\nsucceeds in entering lawfully. However, the problem can be\nmitigated by reducing the incentives for illegal immigration.\nThose incentives are essentially economic.\n- 111 -\nIf potential immigration law violators cannot find\nemployment, they may be discouraged from ever attempting\nto come in the first place. Moreover, if the illegal\nalien cannot use dilatory tactics to build up equities\nunder immigration law, there will also be less incentive\nto remain. Finally, if various social benefits are\nunavailable, there will be almost no opportunity to pro-\nlong stay in the United States. But a fair and balanced\nsystem of enforcement and penalties must also deprive\nemployers of the advantages gained by employing illegal\naliens. Therefore, it is recommended that a disincentive\nprogram involving a range of approaches be adopted.\n1. Sanctions on Employers\nThe preponderance of available information suggests\nthat the major cause underlying illegal migration is the\naliens search for employment and economic opportunity. The\nvast majority of aliens in illegal status who are appre-\nhended by the INS are either working, seeking work or have\nbeen employed at one time or another. In addition, domestic\nemployers' willingness to hire illegal aliens, in some cases\nactively recruit them, is undoubtedly a significant part of\nthe economic forces which exacerbate the flow of illegal\naliens. Those agencies concerned with administering\n- 112 -\nand regulating the flow of aliens into the country are con-\nvinced that only when we begin to cope with the economic\nmagnet that draws individuals here will we be in a position\nto have some control of illegal immigration. This over-\nriding consideration prompted Congress to introduce legisla-\ntion which would impose sanctions upon employers of illegal\naliens. This legislation, commonly known as the \"Rodino\"\nbill, has passed in the House on two occasions, but has never\nbeen acted upon by the Senate. The proposed penalties are\nconditioned upon the employer \"knowingly\" hiring the illegal\nalien. 21/ This type of legislation is perceived to have a\nnumber of beneficial aspects. It sanctions employers who\ncurrently bear no responsibility for hiring of individuals\nillegally in the country, thus eliminating a discriminatory\nand contradictory feature of the current law, namely, it is\nillegal for an unauthorized alien to accept employment but it\nis not illegal for an employer to hire such a person. Further-\nmore, such sanctions would achieve a high level of voluntary\ncompliance simply by being legislated as federal policy.\nAs this legislation has languished in two different\nCongresses because of Senate inaction, this type of approach\nhas become more and more controversial. Initially there was a\nwide range of opinion about whether civil penalties would be\nsufficient or if the stronger criminal penalties would be\n21/ Such a provision does apply in the hiring of farm contract\nlabor. See p. 106.\n- 113 -\nrequired. The INS and the Department of Justice opposed the\n\"civil penalties\" only approach on the grounds that they\nwould not be a sufficient deterrent alone. In addition,\nthe great administrative and financial burden of collecting\npenalties would not be sufficiently offset by civil legis-\nlation.\nThe current legislation in the House (H.R. 8713) con-\ntains a compromise. This compromise suggests a civil and\ncriminal penalty combination similar in nature to other\nFederal provisions such as the Occupational Safety and\nHealth Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 666), the Federal Aviation\nAct (49 U.S.C. 1471) and the Federal Coal Mine Health and\nSafety Act of 1969 (30 U.S.C. 819(a)). The latter, for\nexample, provides for an initial civil penalty to be assessed\nby the Secretary of HEW for the violation of mandatory health\nand safety standards. In addition, this act requires a hearing,\nprovides for the compromise of the amount of the penalty and\npermits suit for the enforcement in U.S. district court.\nMore specifically, criminal penalties are provided in the\nevent of willful violation. The result is a three step\nplan -- citation, civil penalty and then a criminal penalty\n-- for violation of the law.\nThe Senate Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturalization\nhas, for the first time since the enactment of the Immigration\nAct of 1965, commenced hearings on widespread immigration reform.\n- 114 -\nOn March 4, 1976, Senator James O. Eastland, Chairman\nof both the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Subcommittee\non Immigration and Naturalization introduced S. 3074, a\ncomprehensive bill dealing with the problem of the illegal\nalien. With regard to sanctions against employers,\nMr. Eastland proposes direct civil penalties -- up to\n$500 for the first offense and up to $1,000 for each sub-\nsequent offense. Again, the proposal is conditioned upon\nthe employer \"knowingly\" hiring the illegal alien. The\nimposition of sanctions against employers is most contro-\nversial even though the Rodino measures have passed the\nHouse overwhelmingly in both the 92d and 93d Congresses.\nThe formidable opposition which has mounted in the 94th\nCongress has stalled action by the Rules Committee. The\nopposition comes principally from employer groups such as\nthe American Farm Bureau Federation, which feel employers\nare to be compelled to become enforcement \"agents\" of\nfederal law; from minority groups, principally Hispanic,\nwho feel their members will be discriminated against in\nemployment practices and religious groups including the\nUnited States Catholic Conference which also cannot accept\nsanctions without protection against discrimination and\nwithout a meaningful amnesty provision to protect the\naliens and their families from mass exodus or deportation.\n- 115 -\nMany others are concerned, about the difficulties inherent\nin enforcing this type of law, and feel it may be unwise\nfrom a policy standpoint accordingly.\nHowever, the most thorny issue seems to be the per-\nceived problem of discrimination in hiring practices that\nsuch legislation may bring about. One means by which\ndiscrimination in hiring practices could be avoided is the\nuse of some type of identification card which would be\nrequired of every applicant for employment. Such a\nsuggestion has seriously raised further opposition. Opposition\nto this scheme runs the gamut from civil libertarians to\norganized labor. However, in response to this concern,\nthe House has included in the \"Rodino\" bill a provision\nthat authorizes the Attorney General to bring civil actions\nwhen he has reasonable cause to believe that an employer\nhas engaged in employment discrimination based on national\norigin.\nAlthough this Committee is sensitive to the controversial\naspects of the various pieces of proposed legislation, it\nremains convinced that some control over this problem must\nbegin with one of its causes -- employer willingness to\nhire illegal aliens. A great deal of emotion has attended\nthe debate on this subject. And yet, a precedent for this\ntype of approach was established with the enactment into law\n- 116 -\nof a provision in the Farm Labor Contract Registration\nAct prohibiting \"knowing\" employment of illegal aliens. The\nCommittee finds no compelling reasons for why one sector\nof the economy should be singled out for such legislation.\nAs the foregoing discussion of the various instruments\nproposed for implementing such an approach indicate, there\nare strengths and weaknesses to each; the Committee recog-\nnizing this has chosen to avoid recommending the specific\nmeans by which such legislation should be carried out.\nHowever, it does recommend that appropriate means be\ndeveloped to:\n1. Penalize employers of illegal aliens.\n2. Prohibit use of U.S. Government funds\nfor employment and training of aliens\nwho are not authorized to work.\n3. Disallow for federal income tax purposes\nany business deduction for wages paid\nto an illegal alien.\n2. Combating Dilatory Tactics\nThe longer the illegal alien is able to remain in the\nUnited States, the greater is his reward. For this reason,\nit has been said by immigration lawyers, \"the name of the\ngame is time.\" The alien of course needs time to work so\nhe can earn a sufficient amount of money to employ a lawyer\n- 117 -\nor travel agent to help him become a lawful permanent\nresident alien so he will not become a public charge, and\nto support his family abroad until he is able to bring them\nto the United States. He may also need time to obtain a\njob that would qualify him for a labor certification, to\nmarry a lawful resident alien or United States citizen or\ndivorce his spouse abroad and remarry, or to become the\nparent of a United States citizen child so that he will be\nexempt from the labor certification requirement. Also the\npassage of time may enable the illegal alien to acquire\nequities so that he may become eligible for adjustment of\nstatus or regularization of his status through registry or\nsuspension of deportation.\nBecause time is such a valuable ingredient, it puts a\npremium on delays, adjournments, dilatory tactics and other\ntechniques of evasion, including frivolous appeals. The\nfollowing recommendations will lessen the possibilities of\nwaiting out the system:\n1. Amend suspension of deportation provisions\nto preclude consideration of physical\npresence acquired in the United States\nsubsequent to initiation of explusion\nproceedings.\n- 118 -\n2. Change the law to provide that the priority\ndate for the issuance of a visa number will\nregress, or that the waiting time for a visa\napplication will be extended, in proportion\nto the time spent in the United States\nsubsequent to the institution of deportation\nproceedings.\n3. Discontinue the statutory provision that\nautomatically grants a stay of deportation\nupon the filing in a Circuit Court of Appeals\nof a petition to review a deportation order.\n3.\nSanctions on Illegal Aliens\nMore can be done to discourage individuals from pro-\nfiting by violating the law, or manipulating the law to\ngain experience that may entitle them to preference under\nit.\n1. Make violations of status or unauthorized employ-\nment grounds for barring persons from adjustment\nof status within the United States. *\n2. Require certain students to return to their native\nlands for a period of at least two years before\nthey can become eligible for immigration to the\nUnited States.\n*P.L. 94-571, signed October 20, 1976, contains a provision\nwhich bars adjustment of status for an alien (other than an\nimmediate relative) who continues in or accepts unauthorized\nemployment.\n- 119 -\n3. Narrow the categories of aliens who may be\nclassified as a nonimmigrant student.\n4. Disallow, for purposes of labor certification\nand occupational visa preference, work experience\ngained by an alien while illegally in the United\nStates.\n5. Require a labor certification for the parents\nof a United States citizen child under 21 in\nthe Western Hemisphere.*\n6. Eliminate marriage after the institution of\ndeportation proceedings as a reason for adjust-\ning status from that of an alien to permanent\nresident.\n7. Forbid the return to the United States of\na deported alien unless he has reimbursed the\nUnited States for the estimated expense of his\ndeportation.\n4. Denying Social Benefits\nA comprehensive approach to the problem also requires\nthat illegal aliens be denied the means to remain in the\ncountry. However, measures in this area should not be so\nharsh that emergency medicare treatment or the like would\nbe precluded.\n* P.L. 94-571, signed October 20, 1976, provides for such a\nrequirement.\n- 120 -\n1. Define \"public charge\" to include aliens\nreceiving public assistance whether or not\nthere is a requirement to reimburse the\ngovernmental agency that furnished the\nassistance.\n2. Deny federal benefit programs to illegal\naliens such as is currently provided for\nin the case of food stamps.\n5. Enhancing Enforcement\nEnforcement of the law can be enhanced by providing\ngreater authorities or making greater use of already available\nmechanisms similar to that of other federal agencies.\n1. Authorize summary seizure and forfeiture of\nvessels, vehicles, and aircraft used for\nsmuggling aliens.\n2. Include in the criminal penalty imposed\nfor counterfeiting the following: border\ncrossing and alien registration cards and\nother documents used for entry into or as\nevidence of stay in the United States.\n3. Require visitors and students to post\ndeparture bonds with American Consuls.\nMost of these items would not have a major budgetary\nimpact, since they, in large part, only seek to create\nadditional impediments to those who are violating their\n- 121 -\nimmigration status. The major exception is, of course, any\nprovision which would penalize employers of illegal aliens.\nThe budgetary impact for such a provision is a matter of record\nin congressional testimony. It may be more appropriate to deal\nwith some disincentive concepts by regulation or executive\norder, rather than by seeking legislation. On the other hand,\nit may be desirable to bolster the food stamp prohibition,\nwhich is currently governed by regulation, with the force of\nlaw. Moreover, various federal benefit programs should be\nstudied and clarified in the overall context of aliens' rights.\nWhatever the means, there is a clear need for introducing\ngreater rationality into the immigration laws which often\nwork at cross purposes, or in ways never envisioned.\n6. Changes Having An Indirect Impact\nAny major revision of our immigration and naturalization\nlaws must include consideration of the extent to which these\nlaws no longer reflect contemporary standards and thinking.\nAs current conditions exist, immigration investigators may spend\nconsiderable time investigating allegations involving the use\nof marijuana or moral turpitude for an applicant for naturaliza-\ntion. These efforts are counterproductive and detract from\nmore important enforcement tasks. Thus, consideration must also\nbe given to those changes which would streamline the immigration\nprocess of its anachronistic provisions and thereby free manpower\nand resources. Some examples would be: the elimination of mandatory\nexcludability and deportability for possession of small amounts of\n- 122 -\nmarijuana, a statute of limitations in deportation, and\nthe restriction of the Attorney General's authority to waive\ninadmissibility because of technical defects in immigrant\nvisas.\nE.\nCONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS\nImmigration law enforcement today is directed almost\ntotally at the problem of illegal immigration. The agencies\nwith primary responsibility for enforcing the law, the\nImmigration and Naturalization Service and the Department of\nState, have a long history of involvement with the problems\nof the United States - Mexico border and illegal immigration\nin that context. The newer illegal migration from other\nnations requires different tactics and methods.\nOur enforcement efforts are not sufficiently effective\nto undermine the push-pull forces which create and sustain\nillegal immigration. Significant improvements must be\nmade in several areas.\nRECOMMENDATIONS\n1. Prevention of entry should remain the foremost enforcement\ngoal of both the INS and the Department of State from\na cost, a legal, and a community impact point of view.\nTo achieve an acceptable level of prevention will\nrequire additional resources for both agencies, and\n- 123 -\nimproved management techniques (see pages 98-102\nand 107-109), and higher priority for the visa\nfunction with the Department of State.\n2. Several federal agencies share varying degrees\nof responsibility in illegal alien enforcement.\nEnforcement efforts would be significantly\nstrengthened by continuing and expanding the\ncooperative interagency efforts underway.\nSpecific, detailed recommendations are discussed\nabove in pages 93-106.\n3. Additional resources and improved coordination must\nbe augmented with substantial legislative action\nin five important areas: sanctions on employers,\ncombating dilatory tactics, sanctions on illegal\naliens, denying social benefits and enhancing\nenforcement. Discussed on pages 111-120, these\nchanges would rationalize the current penalty\nstructure directed at illegal entry to reflect\na goal of slowing the flow of illegal aliens.\n4. In the longer run the Immigration and Nationality\nAct should be fundamentally reviewed in order to\nexamine the extent to which the current law and\nits enforcement meets policies and values of the\nsociety in which it exists today.\n- 124 -\nCHAPTER IV -- THE ILLEGAL ALIEN: A SOFT PORTRAIT\nLaw enforcement is the first line of domestic response\nto illegal immigration. However, sizeable illegal immigration\nraises additional questions for the society which merit con-\nsideration. To postulate the implications of a significant\nillegal population in our society requires information derived\nfrom research.\nCurrent studies of the illegal alien can be compared to\na series of preliminary sketches. Each is drawn from a\ndifferent perspective on the subject and none can stand by\nitself as a valid representation of the whole.\nThe intent of this chapter is to examine existing data\nfrom many sources in an effort to develop the foundations for\nassessing their effects on our society. In this way we can\ndetermine which of the elements are missing, incomplete,\nmisplaced or of questionable value.\nA. DATA DEFICIENCIES\nThe task forces concerned with assessing the domestic\nimpact of illegal aliens reviewed a wide range of information\nwhich has been developed about the impact of the illega Much\nof this information is based on opinion rather than hard data.\nWriters, researchers, and officials who have been close to the\nissue may be very perceptive in their analyses but it is\nimpossible to confirm independently the accuracy of their\n- 125 -\njudgments. Attached as an Appendix A to this report is a\ncomprehensive listing and summary of the topic areas and\nsources of information which is available on the impact of\nthe illegal. * We make no value judgment on the relative validity\nof these sources. Among them, however, are several studies\nwhich represent sound research efforts and which we believe,\ndespite the serious problems described below, provide some\nobjective basis for setting forth a \"soft portrait\" of the\nillegal alien given the data available to date.\nThe data and therefore the portrait is severely handi-\ncapped by the enormous methodological problems inherent in\nany attempt to count and describe a clandestine population.\nEvery attempt will be made by the individual to mask his\nillegal status. Proof of legal status would have to be volun-\nteered and no researcher can demand such information of an\nuncooperative subject. Moreover, substantial numbers of\nillegals may be highly mobile and may not have one fixed\naddress for a long period of time. Therefore, even locating\na random sample of this population poses almost insurmountable\ndifficulties.\nA second problem is the absence of a suitable interview\nenvironment. Two of the studies reviewed were based on inter-\nviews conducted at INS detention centers with groups of\napprehended illegal aliens.\n*Prepared and submitted by the Immigration and Naturalization\nService.\n- 126 1\nThe North-Houstoun study used 793 apprehended illegal\naliens, 16 years of age or older who had worked for wages for\nat least two weeks in the United States. Any sample taken\nfrom the population of apprehended illegal aliens is automati-\ncally biased by current INS enforcement strategy. The number\nof illegal aliens apprehended by INS at a certain time in a\ncertain place varies with any number of factors, including\nlocal priorities, the types of \"leads\" on hand, the amount of\nmoney available for detention and deportation, detention space\navailable, INS manpower available, etc. It should also be noted\nthat any group of apprehendees will overstate the proportion of\nMexicans in the overall illegal alien population due to INS\nenforcement policy. Because of these numerous factors which\naffect INS apprehensions, it is impossible for apprehensions\nto reflect the illegal population as a whole.\nFor example, far less detention space (if any) is avail-\nable for the detention of females, and INS policies on\ntransporting females are sufficiently cumbersome so that there\nis a tendency not to apprehend women when the number of males\nthat can be apprehended already exceeds the capabilities of\nthe available INS manpower. This operational reality influences\nnot only the data obtained in the North-Houstoun study about\nsex, but also all other data obtained, especially that on the\nparticipation of illegal aliens in the labor market, and in\nthe tax, social security, health, education, and welfare\nsystems. Unemployment runs higher for certain foreign-born women,\n- 127 -\nand it is therefore quite possible that more women may be at\nhome rather than in places of business which are more likely\ntargets for INS enforcement efforts because of the greater\nlikely pay-off. Moreover, the unemployed are far more likely\nrecipients of welfare, food stamps, health benefits, etc.\nThe unemployed illegal aliens group was not, however, touched\nby the study. Because the group surveyed by the North-Houstoun\nstudy had been employed, it can be concluded that this study\nis significantly biased against indicating any impact illegal\naliens might have on welfare or social services.\nPursuant to a 1972 study by the Mexican Government, 22 /\nresearchers interviewed persons at the border who were return-\ning voluntarily. Illegal aliens from Mexico may misrepresent\nwhere they live in Mexico because they wish to avoid being\nreturned to the interior. For some obvious reasons, some\napprehended illegals may not want to discuss how, when, and\nwhere they crossed the border, or how much they had earned.\n22 7 After a meeting in June of 1972 between Presidents Nixon\nand Echeverria, both countries established interdepartmental\nstudy commissions to analyze and evaluate the problems posed\nby Mexican migration to the United States. The Mexican group,\nduring the course of its study, interviewed several returning\nMexican migrants who were granted voluntary departure. Because\nof this factor alone, this study suffers from the same problem\nof representativeness that similar United States studies have\nsuffered from, also. This study will be referred to through-\nout the chapter.\n- 128 -\nProbably the closest thing to a suitable environment was\npresent in the small scale study performed by Dr. Wayne\nCornelius. Persons who had returned from illegal work in\nthe United States were interviewed at home in Mexico. Yet,\nthese people may differ in significant ways from illegal aliens\nwho do not return home. Interviewers explained that they\nwere not representatives of the Government of Mexico and\nwould keep responses confidential. However, the study was a\ncollection of preliminary findings of a 22-month study. This\nparticular phase covered a period of 15 months. The findings\nwere tentative since a final seven-month phase was yet to be\ncompleted. The research was carried out in small communities\nranging in size from 490 to 4,500 inhabitants and covered\nonly one state in Mexico. The author points out that the\nfindings of a case study of the type conducted are always\nsubject to challenge on the grounds that the communities\nselected for inclusion in the study were not in some way\nrepresentative of the majority of rural communities in Mexico\nwhich serve as points of origin for migrants to the United\nStates. Most of the persons interviewed, who migrated to the\nU.S. were single men. Married men interviewed did not take\ntheir wives and children with them. The author is also quick\nto point out that persons being interviewed during this study\nwere those who had successfully entered the U.S., had been\n- 129 -\nemployed, and had remitted part of their earnings to families\nat home.\nAnother problem is that studies tend to stress the\nundocumented worker from Mexico. This is certainly the largest\nsingle group, but it is unlikely that it forms as large a\npercentage as is commonly perceived. In this profile, studies\nlimited to illegal aliens from Mexico will be separated from\nstudies which attempt to treat the wider spectrum of nation-\nality. Nonetheless more must be known about the Mexican\nmigration.\nIn reviewing illegal Mexican immigration to California,\nW. Tim Dagodag conducted a study of migration from a number\nof Mexican states to one United States state (California),\nbasing the study on data collected by INS from apprehended\nillegal aliens. As described previously, this approach will\nseverely bias the male-female distribution, a factor recognized\nin the study. Further, over 77% of the surveyed were apprehended\nwith 72 hours of their illegal entry into California, a period\nof time too short for a high percentage to either locate\nemployment or to have access to the American social support\nsystem. All of those in the study were either currently\nemployed or were actually seeking employment, presenting\nsignificant potential competition for those segments of society\nleast able to protect themselves.\n- 130 -\nAnother approach is represented by the San Diego County\nstudy which is based primarily on \"best estimates\" made by\nthe various county agencies and anecdotes, rather than\nstatistical methodology. The methodology consisted largely\nof interviews with \"knowledgeable persons,\" i.e., members of\nthe San Diego Immigration Council and their various contacts\nwithin the county agencies and in county community affairs.\nIn the few cases where samples were taken, they were often\ntoo small to provide statistically sound results or were not\nchosen randomly. It also appears from the report that each\nagency and person interviewed may have had varying interpreta-\ntions of the definition of illegal aliens. The need for a\nclear and concise understanding of the parameters of the illegal\nalien population is especially crucial in a border county where\nthere is also a considerable legal Hispanic population and\nwhere there may also be a \"permanent\" illegal alien popula-\ntion. Also, cases cited do not reflect the impact of illegal\naliens on entire county social systems in many cases, but\nrather relate to the estimated impact on one particular school\nor hospital.\nEven if based on sound estimates the San Diego study is\nspecific only for an area with a major influx of illegal\nMexican aliens and an influx of very few non-Mexican aliens.\nIt is impossible to generalize this unique border experience\n- 131 -\nto any other area, especially to the illegal alien population\nat large.\nWith the above qualifications and problems in mind, we\nin no way intend to endorse these studies but instead have\nfound them to provide a reasonable basis for certain tentative\njudgments. INS is currently conducting a Residential Survey\nas a key component of a research program on illegal immigration.\nThe survey is the first attempt to collect data on the number,\ncharacteristics, and impacts of illegal immigrants on a\nnational scale. 23 / The results will be very helpful to\nincreased understanding of impact questions.\nB. DEFINITIONS\n\"Entry without Inspection\" (EWI) will be used to designate\npersons who enter surreptitiously. \"Visa abuser\" will be\nused to designate all individuals who enter with a legal docu-\nment but then violate the terms of that document, or anyone\nelse who uses fraudulent means to gain entry to the United\nStates. \"Western Hemisphere\" (WH) refers to independent countries\nof North, Central and South America as well as those of the\nCaribbean. \"Eastern Hemisphere\" (EH) refers to any independent\ncountry not included under Western Hemisphere. Colonies and\n23 / The Survey is to be conducted in the twelve most populous\nstates: California, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, Illinois,\nOhio, Michigan, New Jersey, Florida, Massachusetts, Indiana,\nand North Carolina.\n- 132 -\ndependencies are counted as part of the country with which\nthey have that relationship. The terms illegal alien and\nundocumented worker are used interchangeably.\nC.\nPERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS\nA review of data relating to personal characteristics\ncan be extremely useful in assessing the impact of the presence\nof the illegal alien. For example, if the population is\nyoung, we can predict that the group will not place heavy\ndemands on services for the aged in the near future. If the\npopulation is predominantly male, we can expect that demands\non hospital maternity facilities would be small.\nNationality\nThere is little data available on the national origin of\nthe illegal alien population. The most comprehensive data\nis the numbers of deportable aliens apprehended by the INS.\nNinety percent of apprehended illegals are Mexican citizens.\nThe non-Mexican apprehended groups breaks down as follows:\nÉ\nPercentage\nNumber\nCanada\n12%\n9,362\nBritish West Indies & Belize\n7%\n5,512\nGreece\n6%\n4,619\nChina\n5%\n4,204\nDominican Republic\n5%\n3,601\nPhilippines\n4%\n2,804\nUnited Kingdom\n3%\n2,334\nOthers\n59%\n45,750*\n*Only countries with over three percent representation in this\npopulation have been included. Because of rounding, percentages\nadd up to 101%. (INS, 1975)\n- 133 -\nWhile it is reasonable to assume that Mexican nationals\nform the largest element within the illegal alien population,\nit is probable that they constitute far less than ninety\npercent. Several researchers have suggested that the true\npercentage is closer to sixty percent, but this estimate\nappears to be no better than an educated guess. (North, 1976)\nAs previously mentioned, the apprehension rate is biased by\nthe emphasis of the INS enforcement activity. It is also\nbiased by the ease in identification of many Mexicans on the\nbasis of racial characteristics. Another aspect of enforcement\nefforts which may further skew the figures is that the INS\nspends relatively little effort in attempting to locate visa\nabusers. If we are to believe the findings of certain studies,\nfewer Mexicans are in the visa abuser category. (North, 1976) 24/\nA recent study done under contract for INS concerning\nfraudulent use of immigration documents has some nationality\ndata. Inspections of documents for the study were made on a\nrandom sample of applicants for admission at 10 major inter-\nnational airports and the 12 largest ports of entry on our\nSouthern land border. Nationality breakdowns are not avail-\nable for the land port group. Of those malafide entries\nHere and elsewhere the term \"visa abuser\" excludes Mexican\ncitizens who, under pretext of shopping on the U.S. side, are\nactually employed. No data are available on the size of this\ngroup, but it may be substantial.\n- 134 -\nthrough airports, 57% came from countries bordering the\nCaribbean excluding Mexico; 14% came from Mexico, 17% came\nfrom Europe; and 5% came from South America. (Fraud.\nEntrants, 1976)\nOrigin Within Country of Citizenship\nInformation has been discovered relating to the regional\norigin of some illegal aliens within their country of citizen-\nship. Unfortunately, such data are limited to Mexico. This\ninformation will be useful in selecting sites for further\nresearch on \"push\" factors. It may also be useful in consider-\ning new techniques for the identification of illegals in\nenforcement activities.\nForty-six years ago, Manuel Gamio identified the states\nof Michoacan, Guanajuato and Jalisco as the primary sending\nareas of Mexico for both legal and illegal immigrants. (Gamio,\n1930) Studies done during the last few years have come to\nessentially the same conclusion. A study based on the analysis\nof apprehension forms for the Chula Vista sector (California)\nidentified two of the states mentioned by Gamio as the source\nof forty-eight percent of the aliens apprehended (Jalisco and\nMichoacan). (Dagodag, 1975) A second study conducted by\nthe Mexican Government along the length of the border revealed\nthat fifty-seven percent of those who had been apprehended\n- 135 -\nwere from six states. Three of the states were the same as\nthose cited by Gamio. The others were Chihuahua, Baja,\nCalifornia and San Luis Potosi (Mexico, 1972). The 1968\nBorder Study Project directed by Julian Samora cited Gamio's\nthree states and added Chihuahua and Durango as the source of\nmore than fifty percent of the migration. (Samora, 1971)\nWhile the findings of these four studies are not absolutely\nconsistent in that they rank the states differently, the\ndegree of similarity of their findings over a forty-six year\nperiod is remarkable.\nPerhaps even more valuable than data on state origin,\nis the data gathered by the Mexican Government on the origin\nby \"municipio\". There there are 2,338 \"municipios\" in Mexico,\nmore than fifty percent of the persons interviewed were from\n82 \"municipios\".\nSeveral studies have also pointed out that the areas from\nwhich many illegal aliens come are precisely those areas\nwhich provided the bulk of the \"braceros\" during the life of\nthat program (1942-1964). One researcher has suggested that\nthe \"bracero\" program in a sense never stopped, but merely\nwent underground. (Cornelius, 1976)\nAge\nThe available studies indicate that the group is pre-\ndominantly a young one and consequently is very active in\n- 136 -\nthe labor market. If the average age is indeed less than\nthirty, the group will probably continue to be active for more\nthan thirty years (provided, of course, that these individuals\nremain in the United States).\nThe only study which deals with the age of illegal aliens\nacross the board sets the average at 28.5 years. (North, 1976)\nThe average age of illegals who seek to enter the U.S. at\nSouthern land ports with documents that are fraudulent or with\nthe intent to violate terms of the visa is 27 to 28 years.\nThose entering through international airports have an average\nage of 30. (Fraud. Entrants, 1976) Other studies dealing\nonly with the Mexican illegal come to similar conclusions.\nSome of these are: \"mean age\", 29, (Dagodag, 1975) ; 61.4%\nbetween the ages of 18 and 29, (Mexico, 1972) ; predominantly\n17-29, (Cornelius, 1976) ; more than 70% under 30, (Samora,\n1971). 25/\nSex\nThe percentage of males VS. females in the illegal alien\npopulation may affect the impact that the group has on the\nlabor market. It may also indicate the present and future\nimpact on social institutions such as schools and health care\n25 / If the probability of being apprehended decreases the\nlonger one has been in the U.S., older illegal aliens are\nunderrepresented in arrest data.\n- 137 -\nfacilities.\nSeveral studies and anecdotal data indicate that the\nillegal alien population is overwhelmingly male (about 90%)\nHowever, these data are based on apprehended illegal aliens\nand are therefore suspect. INS maintains no overnight deten-\ntion facilities for women and consequently concentrates its\nefforts on the apprehension of males (except for individuals\napprehended or turned back in the border zone).\nFraudulent Entrants Study found that for the malafide\napplicants denied entry at the studied land ports, 55 percent\nwere women. At the airports studied, 45 percent of the mala-\nfide applicants denied entry were women. These data are based\nupon a random sample. They challenge the 90 percent male\nestimate at least for those who do not enter surreptitiously\nbetween ports of entry.\nBased on his interview sample, North at first appears to\naccept the nine to one ratio. However, he concludes that the\nratio is probably not accurate. He points out that in a study\nhe did in 1975 for the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration,\n40 percent of the unapprehended illegal aliens identified were\nwomen. Of the 51 unapprehended illegal aliens he interviewed\nin the 1976 study, 41 percent were female. Of the 344 married\napprehended aliens he interviewed in the 1976 study, 135 said\nthat they had a spouse in the United States. While no data\n- 138 -\nare available to indicate whether the spouse is also here\nillegally, a substantial percentage are likely to be illegals. 26/\nEducational Level\nThe educational level of the illegal alien is a parti-\ncularly important area of consideration in evaluating the\nimpact of this population on the labor market. It can be\nassumed that the nature of employment and wages which the\nillegal alien obtains in the U.S. will bear some relationship\nto his or her educational level. However, the North study\nindicates that many illegal alien white-collar workers are\nemployed in blue collar positions in the U.S. (North, 1976) 27 /\nThe average number of years of formal education found by\nNorth, among apprehended illegal aliens, was 6.7 years. However,\nfor the Eastern Hemisphere, the average number of years was\n11.9 (about the U.S. average). The average for Mexican\nnationals was 4.9 years. Other studies have also indicated\n26 / Regarding the North Study, it is imperative to keep in\nmind that their sample of apprehended illegal aliens was not\nrandom. A criterion for selection in that study was that all\npersons interviewed had to have worked for at least two weeks\nin the United States prior to apprehension. Because this\nsample group was apprehended illegal aliens, most of the\nmembers were men.\n27 / Occupations may require different skills in different\ncountries. A white collar clerk in Mexico may find that a\nlack of fluency in English limits him to blue collar work in\nthe U.S. Or skills sufficient in country of origin may not\nbe sufficient in the U.S.\n- 139 -\na very low average for Mexican illegal alien workers. (North,\n1976; Samora, 1971; Mexico, 1972)\nSince the educational level of many illegal aliens\nappears to be low, these individuals would probably find\nemployment in unskilled jobs. The social impact of their\npresence would be similar to that of other workers in such\njobs.\nMarital Status\nThe marital status of the undocumented worker population\ncould be an important indication of potential for social\nimpact by suggesting permanence (if the illegal alien is\nmarried and brings spouse) ; disruption of family (if married\nand does not bring spouse) ; potential for regularization of\nstatus (if the individual is seeking a spouse) and the possi-\nbility of changing from an illegal status to a legal status\n(if the individual marries a citizen even though the original\nintention was not to stay permanently).\nThe one study which deals with this subject for the\nillegal alien population as a whole, indicated that thirty-six\npercent of the twenty-five to thirty-four age group was single.\n(North, 1976)\nThe Fraudulent Entrants study developed marital status\ninformation only on the individuals who entered through inter-\nnational airports. A majority of both sexes (58.9% and 56.6%\nof women) were single.\n- 140 -\nStudies relating to Mexican undocumented workers of all\nages also indicated high percentages: 52 percent single (of\nthe entire group of 2,794), usually single (group of 75),\n62.3 percent single (group of 1,539) and 46 percent single\n(group of 493). (Mexico, 1972; Cornelius, 1976; Dagodag,\n1975; Samora, 1971)\nIn addition to the importance of marital status as an\nindicator of permanence, this factor will also affect the way\nthe individual impacts on the community.\nLanguage Ability\nEnglish language ability directly affects how an illegal\nalien will interact with the community. It is thought to be\na major determinant of the kind of employment he or she can\nexpect and also may influence his or her decisions as to where\nto live.\nThe one study which provided information on language\nability for the overall group indicated that sixty-four percent\ndid not speak English. Among Western Hemisphere illegals the\npercentage was nearly seventy percent. (North, 1976)\nFor the Mexican group, two studies provided some informa-\ntion. Both reported that ninety percent of the group did not\nspeak English. (North, 1976; Samora, 1971)\nOne study also found that illegal aliens with a good\ncommand of English were likely to have: (1) better jobs,\n- 141 -\n(2) less problem in avoiding INS, and (3) were likely to live\noutside ethnic communities. (North, 1976)\nMotivation\nAn individual who decides to emigrate illegally to the\nU.S. may do so for a single reason or for several. However,\nthe primary reason for the decision of the majority of illegals\nappears to be economic. This is attested to by INS data, e.g.,\nnumber of apprehended illegals employed and number of illegals\napprehended while seeking jobs. It is also supported by anec-\ndotal accounts. Additional supporting evidence for this\nbelief can be obtained by comparing economic conditions in\nmajor sending countries with those in the U.S. (push-pull\nfactors). While employment opportunities for illegal aliens\nin the U.S. may be poor by American standards, they are con-\nsiderably better than those in the country of origin.\nData obtained by North in his interviews of 793 appre-\nhended illegals strongly supports this belief. Seventy-four\npercent of those interviewed gave employment opportunities\nas the reason for emigration. When the responses were broken\ndown by region of origin, however, some very interesting con-\ntrasts became apparent. Only twenty-three percent of Eastern\nHemisphere respondents said that they had entered to find a\njob. Sixty percent of non-Mexican Western Hemisphere respondents\nalso gave this as a primary motive. In contrast, eighty-nine\n-- 142 -\npercent of the Mexican illegal aliens interviewed by North\ngave employment as the reason for emigration. The other\nresponses for non-Mexican illegals interviewed by North were\nas follows: 17% to study, 15% to see the U.S., 6.5% to see\nrelatives and 10% gave other reasons. (North, 1976)\nStudies limited to Mexican illegals strongly emphasize\nthe economic nature of the motivation to emigrate. (North,\n1976; Cornelius, 1976; Mexico, 1972; Samora, 1971) One study\nsuggested two additional reasons for emigration. These were:\na desire to escape parental authority and temporary emigration\nto the U.S. as a local tradition. (Cornelius, 1976)\nD. CHARACTERISTICS OF ENTRY\nThe breakdown by area of origin (Eastern Hemisphere V.\nWestern Hemisphere) confirms what we could logically expect.\nMost illegals from the Eastern Hemisphere fall into the visa\nabuser category, while Western Hemisphere illegals from Mexico\nand Canada usually enter without inspection. Other Western\nHemisphere illegal aliens are more likely to be visa abusers.\nSixty-one percent of all illegals are apprehended within\nseventy-two hours of entry. Most of these persons are Mexican\nEWI's caught at the border or in the border zone. (INS, 1975)\nEntry Without Inspection (EWI)\nEighty-eight percent of the illegal aliens apprehended\nby INS are in this category. However, the pattern changes\n- 143 -\ndramatically when the origin of the undocumented worker is\ntaken into consideration. For example, very few Eastern\nHemisphere apprehended illegals are EWI's (2.4%). On the\nother hand, twenty percent of Western Hemisphere illegals are\nin this category if Mexico and Canada are excluded. Forty\npercent of the Canadians are EWI's and ninety-six percent of\nMexicans are in this category. (INS, 1975)\nA large percentage of illegals entering from Mexico\nappear to be aided by smugglers. For a price, the smuggler\nindicates when, where, and how a group should attempt to cross.\nThey are then met by a truck on the U.S. side. Transportation\ncan be arranged as far north as Chicago and services frequently\ninclude some sort of forged document. It appears to cost\nsomewhere between $200 to $300 depending on the services\nrendered. (Cornelius, 1976; Dagodag, 1975; Samora, 1971)\nVisa Abusers and Malafide Entrants\nA visa abuser enters on a legal visa, but then overstays\nor violates the conditions of his/her visa. Individuals in\nthis group are overwhelmingly non-Mexican. Visa abusers are\napprehended less frequently because of the nature of INS\nenforcement efforts. The category represents about twelve\npercent of the illegals apprehended. 28 /\n28 / However, it should be noted that INS records indicate that\nMexican unresolved departures total almost 400,000 since 1974.\nThis data represents those holding documents.\n- 144 -\nA subcategory of visa abusers is malafide entrants.\nThis includes those attempting entry with counterfeit or\naltered documents, as imposters, by false verbal or documented\nclaims to U.S. citizenship, or with valid documents, the terms\nof which the bearer had or intends to violate, usually to work.\nIt is estimated that in 1975 there were 12 to 14 times as many\nsuccessful malafide entries as there were entries denied.\nThese statistics relate to entries, not entrants and are\ntherefore not an estimate of population as one individual may\nenter several times. However, these data mean that over\n500,000 (ratio of 9:1 land port to airport) fraudulent entries\nwere made. This figure is exclusive of sea or Northern border\narrivals, those with bona fide intentions upon arrival who\nsubsequently violate terms of admission, and those entering\nsurreptitiously between ports. (Fraud. Entrants, 1976)\nOthers\nAnother group mentioned previously is those Mexican\ncitizens who live close to the border and commute daily to\njobs in U.S. border towns under the pretext of shopping in\nU.S. stores. No data exists as to the number of persons in\nthis category but the group may be sizeable. 29 /\n29 / One group related to this phenomenon, however, is known.\nThose holding cards that convey \"commuter\" privileges number\napproximately 45,000 on the Southern Border.\n- 145 -\nE. CHARACTERISTICS OF RESIDENCE\nWhere and how illegal aliens live in this country is of\nconcern in that it directly affects their impact on communities.\nUnfortunately, the available information is limited and is of\npoor quality.\nLocation\nHard data on the location of illegal aliens within this\ncountry are limited to apprehension figures. These, to a\nconsiderable degree, are a function of the nature of enforce-\nment activity of the INS. At best they provide an extremely\nrough indication of where the illegals are. Apprehension data\ndo, however, show that a change has taken place in the distri-\nbution of undocumented workers. Illegals are now apprehended\nin every state and in virtually every town. Substantial\nnumbers of Mexican illegals have moved successively northward\naway from the border even though the largest concentrations\nare probably still in the Southwest.\nAccording to one researcher, the largest single element\nin the illegal alien population on the East Coast is from the\nisland of Hispaniola (Haiti and the Dominican Republic).\nAnother researcher divides the population into three elements:\n(1) Mexican--residing mainly in California and the Southwest,\n(2) other Western Hemisphere--mainly East Coast, and (3)\nEastern Hemisphere--predominantly East Coast. (Piore, 1974;\nNorth, 1976)\n- 146 -\nOne 1972 study, based on interviews with 2,794 Mexican\nillegal aliens departing voluntarily, indicated that appre-\nhension took place in the following states:\nTexas\n-\n44%\nCalifornia -\n25%\nArizona\n-\n10%\nNew Mexico -\n8%\nIllinois\n-\n3.3%\nResidence With Other Illegal Aliens\nNorth indicates that illegals are likely to reside with\nother illegals. This was especially true with Mexican illegals\n(53.9%) and also with those that spoke little English.\n(North,\n1976)\nResidence in Areas With High Percentages of Resident\nAliens and Citizens of Similar Ethnic Background\nBeyond the North data, little or no evidence has been\nfound to indicate that illegal aliens are concentrated nationally\nin areas with high percentages of resident aliens and citizens\nof similar ethnic background.\nBustamante and others have described the tension existing\nbetween illegals and citizens of the same ethnic background.\nCornelius mentions that those illegals with relatives in the\nU.S. may live with them but that this is probably not the\nmajority. Perhaps the best indication that there is some\n- 147 -\nvalidity to this assumption is INS's success in making appre-\nhensions in these areas. (Bustamante, 1976; Cornelius, 1976;\nNorth, 1976)\nMobility\nData of several types are available from different\nresearchers which indicate that the illegal alien is highly\nmobile and frequently returns to his/her country of citizen-\nship. This can be interpreted as proof of the continuing\nstrength of his/her ties to his/her native country. One\nresearcher reported that apprehended illegals returned to\ntheir country of origin an average of 2.1 times during a five\nyear period.\nApparently, Mexican nationals have a much higher return\nrate than non-Mexicans. Mexican illegals returned home on\nthe average of 4.5 times during the last five years. Another\nstudy indicated that the average length of stay in the U.S.\nfor Mexican undocumented workers was six to eight months.\n(North, 1976; Cornelius, 1976)\nWage Remissions\nFrequent remission of part of a worker's earnings to a\nrelative in the country of origin is another indication often\ncited as proof of the strength of ties with the country of\ncitizenship. One study dealing with illegal aliens of all\n- 148 -\nnationalities indicated that seventy-five percent of the\napprehended illegals interviewed stated that part of their\nwages were sent home to help support a relative. (North, 1976)\nOther studies of Mexican nationals indicated a high wage\nremission rate. A 1972 study of voluntary departues indicated\nthat 52% sent wages home by mail. Another study tended to\nconfirm this. (Mexico, 1972; Cornelius, 1976)\nF. CHARACTERISTICS OF WORK PLACE\nExploitation\nFor obvious reasons illegals are vulnerable to exploita-\ntion by unscrupulous employers. They can hardly afford to\nreport substandard work-related housing or dangerous working\nconditions to OSHA nor could they report minimum wage viola-\ntions even though they are theoretically protected. Numerous\nhorror stories circulate regarding employers who report\nillegal aliens to INS in order to avoid paying wages. While\nthere can be no doubt that these circumstances do occur, it is\ndifficult to say how widespread the pattern is.\nOne study based on interviews with illegal aliens of\ndifferent nationalities, reported that twenty-three percent\nof the workers were paid at less than the minimum wage. The\nsame study reported that eighteen percent of the workers\ninterviewed felt that they had been hired because they were\nillegal aliens. (North, 1976)\n- 149 -\nThe study done by the Mexican Government in 1972\nrevealed that although eighty percent of those interviewed\nstated that they were willing to go back to the U.S., sixty-\nseven percent reported they were not paid regularly and/or\nwere still owed wages when apprehended. (Mexico, 1972)\nAvailability of Jobs\nMany of the illegals apprehended by INS are discovered\nat their place of work. While no clear indication of the\nsuccess rate of undocumented workers in finding employment is\navailable, some information is available for the Mexican group.\nSome studies indicate that a number of illegal aliens\nhave considerable difficulty in finding jobs. One study\nreported that finding a job presented far more difficulty for\nthe illegal alien than eluding the INS. A second study indicated\nthat only forty-seven percent of the voluntary departures\ninterviewed were able to find a job. An earlier study indi-\ncated that most illegals are unsuccessful in locating a job.\n(Cornelius, 1976; Mexico, 1972; Samora, 1971) 30/\nG. USE OF SERVICES\nIt has frequently been alleged that illegal aliens produce\na substantial drain on public services such as welfare, food\nstamps, hospital care, public education, etc.\n30/ Again, this information may be biased by the groups we\nare dealing with in the samples.\n- 150 -\nSeveral of the studies which base their conclusions on\nhard data contradict this assertion. For example, a study\ndone in San Diego County indicates that of 9,132 welfare cases,\nonly ten were known to be illegal aliens. The same study\nreports that in Los Angeles, of 1,400 cases, only fifty-six\nwere found to be illegal aliens. In San Diego, indications\nwere also found that the problem of illegal aliens partici-\npating in public education, hospital services and food stamps\nwas minimal. (San Diego, 1975)\nAdditional information on this topic was obtained from\nan HEW document which reported error of less than .7 percent\nin the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program\ndue to citizenship-alienage problems. (HEW, 1975)\nThe North study also indicated that the problems of use\nof public services by illegal aliens was minimal. However, it\nis likely that the North study understates the problem since\nall persons interviewed worked for at least two weeks in the\nU.S. prior to apprehension. Of the persons interviewed by\nNorth, only .5% had received welfare, 1.5% had received food\nstamps, 4% had collected unemployment and 27% had used hospitals\nand clinics. Of the 27% who had used hospitals and clinics,\n83% reported that they had paid for the care themselves, or\nthat it was paid for by the employer or by a health insurance\nplan. In consequence, only 4.6% of North's interview population\nhad received free health care. (North, 1976)\n- 151 -\nAnother study dealing with Mexican illegals indicated\nthat only three out of thirty persons interviewed received\nunemployment benefits. None of the persons had ever received\nfood stamps, welfare or medical benefits. (Cornelius, 1976)\nH. CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE TAX BASE\nObviously, illegal aliens pay sales tax and consequently\ncontribute to the tax base. In addition, there are indications\nthat many illegal aliens may pay income tax. The same is true\nof Social Security taxes. According to North, seventy-three\npercent of all illegals he interviewed had income tax with-\nholding deducted from their salaries and seventy-seven percent\nhad Social Security deductions taken out. Perhaps more sur-\nprising was the fact that thirty-two percent had actually\nfiled tax returns. However, it has been pointed out that\nsome illegals claim more than an appropriate number of\ndeductions for dependents. No indication has yet been found\nof how widespread this practice is. (North, 1976)\nSomewhat contradictory information was developed during\na 90-day test conducted by IRS on apprehended illegal aliens\nin INS detention centers. Of the 1,699 illegals interviewed,\n1,090 had outstanding income tax liabilities. The total\namount owed in that test was $247,696, an average per subject\nof about $140. As a result of this high frequency of\n- 152 -\nnon-compliance, (of modest average amounts), the IRS is currently\nstudying compliance among employers known to hire illegal aliens.\nThe results of this review are as yet unavailable. (See pages\n102-104).\nI. SUMMARY\nBased on the above discussion, we must conclude that\nresearch on illegal aliens is very much in its infancy. In\nspite of the limitations and deficiencies, certain guides to\nfuture research are evident. Although this chapter has not\nattempted to discuss stage (s) of settlement, this aspect of\nmigration may bear a major relationship to the impact brought\nabout by illegal migration. Because of our lack of knowledge\nwe have not used the soft portrait to predict which stage (s)\nwe may be experiencing. A discussion of settlement stage (s)\nappears in Chapter VI of the report. In instances where there\nis considerable agreement among researchers, those points of\nagreement can be used to formulate hypotheses. Some of the\nhypotheses emerging from this review are:\n1. The principal impact of the presence of illegal\naliens at this time is likely to be on the labor\nmarket rather than on social services. The nature\nof the impact may be dependent upon the stage of\nsettlement of various groups of illegals. In the\nearly stages, the illegals tend to be young,\nsingle and male. In the latter stages, they tend\nto have families and remain permanently.\n- 153 -\n2. A significant percentage of the earnings of\nillegal aliens is remitted to the country of\norigin.\n3. Mexican migration may be very different from\nthat originating in other countries by method\nof entry, motivation, frequency of return,\neducation and language ability, and male-\nfemale configuration.\n- 154 -\nCHAPTER V - DOMESTIC IMPACT OF ILLEGAL ALIENS\nIn addition to the international forces which establish\nmigrations of people, the domestic impact of illegal aliens\nmust be analyzed. As we have noted in Chapter IV, research\non illegal aliens is still in an embryonic state, making an\nexposition of impacts not only difficult but tentative.\nNevertheless, some basic outlines of the socio-economic\ndimensions of this issue can be developed from available\nresearch, comparison groups and standard social and economic\ntheory.\nRecognizing that (a) the heart of any dramatic policy\nshifts is likely to be a function of domestic impact and that\n(b) domestic impact is a vast area of inquiry, the task forces\nhave developed only select themes consistent with the pre-\nliminary nature of this project. Presumably, as better infor-\nmation and greater awareness develops, our view of the illegal\nalien issue will be increasingly influenced by measures of\ntheir impact.\nThe Issues of Employment and Earnings\nThis section presents hypotheses as to the impact of\nillegal aliens on the labor market and the income of others,\na comparison of the demographic and occupational distribution\nof the illegals with those of legal immigrants, a discussion\nof the earnings of immigrants and a discussion of guest worker\nprograms in the United States and Europe.\n- 155 -\nA. HYPOTHESES\nMuch of the concern with regard to illegal aliens\nfocuses on their impact on the labor market, and the\nresulting effects on the economy as a whole. One concern\nhas to do with the effect on the economy's total output,\nGross National Product (GNP). The other is with the\nimpact on the distribution of real income, that is,\non relative wages, profits and prices.\nGNP and Relative Incomes\nEconomic theory does suggest hypotheses as to the\nimpact of the presence of, or an increase in the number of,\nillegal aliens. The total real output (GNP) produced by\nthe economy increases in response to the greater employment\nsupply due to immigration, whether legal or illegal.\nEven the total real income of those already residing in\n31/\nthe United States increases.\nHowever, the gain in\nreal income is not shared uniformly.\nAs relative wages for illegal aliens decline in response\nto an increase in their labor supply, the owners of firms\nemploying illegal aliens and the consumers of the goods pro-\nduced by illegal aliens tend to gain through higher profits and\nlower prices, respectively. On the other hand, the relative\n31/ This follows from the standard assumption of a\ndeclining marginal product of labor. The marginal\nproduct of labor declines if the extra output from an\nextra million workers decreases as the size of the labor\nforce increases, other factors held constant.\n- 156 -\nwages of legal resident workers who are close substitutes in\nemployment for the illegal aliens also decline. They suffer\na loss in earnings that is not likely to be fully compensated\nby the decline in the prices of goods and services that illegal\naliens produce or by increases in the return on their nonlabor\nassets. In short, many residents may gain a little at the\nmuch greater expense of a few. Historically, public policy has\nattempted to protect the interests of those upon whom such\nburdens fall and this analysis is not intended to suggest\ndepartures from this principle.\nAs will be shown below, apprehended illegal aliens\ntend to be low skilled. And during the first few years\nin the United States, immigrants in general tend to be\nless productive than native born persons of a similar\nage and schooling, as the immigrants are not familiar\nwith the language, skills and customs relevant to U.S.\nlabor markets. If the illegal aliens are in fact\nlow skilled, then low skilled legal resident workers\nare likely to be close substitutes for them in\nemployment. Consequently, the increase in the\nrelative supply of unskilled workers brought about\nby the presence of illegal aliens would tend to\ndepress the real and money wages of unskilled workers.\n- 157 -\nBut this same presence implies a decline in the proportion\nof skilled workers in the labor force, and the relative\nwages of skilled workers to unskilled workers will therefore\ntend to increase.\nThe lower real wages for all low skilled workers as\na result of the illegal immigration of low skill workers\ncould appear as either a slower growth in money wages or\na deterioration in working conditions. The latter effect\nis more likely if there is a floor under money wages, for\nexample, because of minimum wage legislation. Workers\ncan be expected to respond to a deterioration in working\nconditions in a manner similar to their response to lower\nmoney wages.\nThe relative decline in wages in the occupations\nthat are intensive in lower skilled illegal alien labor\nwould encourage legal resident workers to leave these\nsectors, and this occupational change is sometimes referred\nto as the displacement effect. Some of these workers\nwould go to other lower skilled jobs and tend to depress\nwages there. Others, however, would acquire training to\nqualify for higher skilled jobs, as the financial return\nto training has increased. While still others (particularly\nthe aged and married women with young children) would tend\nto drop out of the labor force.\n- 158 -\nThe decline in the earnings and employment of low\nskilled workers would result in an increase in transfer\npayments. Experienced workers who become unemployed\nwould qualify for unemployment compensation benefits.\nSome older workers would apply for social security. Low\nincome families would qualify for Food Stamps, and possibly\nAFDC, among other programs.\nIn the past there has been much concern with the\noutflow of dollars from the United States. This arose\nbecause during a period in which the Government was\nattempting to defend fixed exchange rates, an increase\nin the short-term net outflow of dollars could have serious\nbalance of payments difficulties, and result in substantial\nmanipulation of the domestic economy. In the current\nera of flexible exchange rates, however, such problems\n32/\ndisappear in the long run.\nThere is also a concern among some that the \"leakage\"\nof U.S. dollars due to immigrant remittances has an adverse\neffect on U.S. employment and output. This is not the case\nas ultimately other countries use these U.S. dollars to\nbuy U.S. goods and services. As far as domestic output\nand employment are concerned, it does not matter whether\na U.S. resident spends $100 in the United States or a\nforeigner who received this money from a U.S. resident\nspends $100 for U.S. export.\n32/ The impact of the short run adjustment process is\nambiguous.\n- 159 -\nUnemployment and Job Vacancies\nThere is substantial concern that illegal aliens reduce\nthe number of jobs available for legal workers, and thereby\ncreate unemployment for legal workers. Some even imply that\nthis occurs on a one-for-one basis. This view, however, is\nbased on the assumption that there are a fixed number of jobs\nin the economy, and giving one person a job implies denying\nit to another. As long as relative wages can respond to\nchanging relative supplies of different types of labor, an\nincrease in the size of the illegal alien population per se\nwill not increase unemployment in the long run. There may,\nhowever, be some short-run impact as legal residents may have\nto engage in a somewhat longer job search process until they\nadjust to the new situation.\nThe unemployment impact is heightened when there is a\nfloor under wages and working conditions. If illegals work at\nlevels that just meet or violate Fair Labor Standards Act or\nOccupational Safety and Health Act provisions, but natives\nwill not, employers would hire at least some illegals at\nlegal residents' expense. Furthermore, the violation of\nsuch standards undermines the effectiveness of those protections\nfor native workers. The low skilled legal residents whose\nproductivity rests at the minimum\n- 160 -\nemployment cost (the minimum wage plus the cost of\nlegally mandated fringe benefits and working conditions)\nwould have difficulty finding employment. They would\nexperience greater unemployment as they search for a job\nopening. This adverse employment effect is likely to\nbe most severe for legal residents who are teenagers,\ndisabled, or clearly unskilled -- those who have the\nlowest productivity. Some unemployment from this source\nis not transitional, and can persist for a long time\nespecially if the legal minimum employment cost rises\nat least as fast as average wages in the economy.\nThe argument is sometimes advanced that illegal\naliens do the jobs that all legal resident workers find\nso distasteful that these jobs would not be filled if\nthere were no illegal aliens.\nIn this view, illegal\naliens are not substitutes in employment for legal workers\nbecause the latter would not accept the jobs the illegals\nfill. To attract legal workers to such jobs money wages\nand working conditions would have to be increased by so\nmuch that firms that now rely on illegal workers would\ngo out of business or substantially change their condi-\ntions of employment through a substitution of capital\n33/ The benefits received from income transfer programs\nmay be sufficient to discourage legal workers from taking\njobs that offer low wages and undesirable working conditions.\n- 161 -\nfor labor. The curtailment of the use of illegal alien\nlabor may then have little effect on legal worker employ-\nment, but would raise costs to these firms and raise the\nrelative prices of the items they produce.\nThis view rests on the two assumptions that it\nwould take a very large increase in real wages to induce\nlegal workers to these jobs (inelastic labor supply) and\nthat the demand for these products declines sharply in\nresponse to price increases (elastic demand for the item).\nThe argument was most forcefully raised in discussions\nof the Bracero program, but as will be indicated below,\nthese fears were not well founded. Thus far\nthere is no evidence that these conditions apply to sectors\nemploying illegal aliens. However, more information is\nneeded about the illegal alien labor market before this\ncontroversy can be fully resolved.\nTaxes and Social Services\nThe gain to the resident population from addi-\ntional immigration (legal or illegal) is reduced to the\nextent that the taxes paid by immigrants (or in their\nbehalf by their employers) are less than the sum of the\nextra cost to society of providing them with social services\nand the extra burden they place on the criminal justice\nsystem. The taxes include income, payroll, property, sales\nand excise taxes. Even if illegal aliens do not directly\n- 162 -\npay property taxes, and if many evade income taxes, a smaller\nproportion could evade paying social security taxes (see Chapter\nIV). Social security taxes are the major source of Federal\ntax revenue from low-income families. 34/\nSocial services include subsidized hospital care,\nschooling for children, and welfare benefits. To the extent\nthat illegal aliens are predominantly adult but not ared\nmen, and to the extent that they seek to avoid contact with\ngovernment authorities, their use of social services would be\nminimal and the extra cost to the taxpayers as a whole would\nbe small. Chapter IV suggests on the basis of the research\nperformed to date that their use of social services would\nseem to be minimal at this time. However, if low income\nalien workers bring their families to the U.S., their use of\nsocial services may exceed their contribution to that form of\ntaxes.\nAdditional Hypotheses\nA particular level of net migration may be observed\nbecause there is a large turnover in the immigration popu-\nlation, that is, many migrants return to their country of\norigin after working in the United States for a short period\nof time. The same net migration can also be observed\nbecause of a gross inflow and little or no return migration.\nThe latter implies a longer average tenure in the United\nStates of illegal aliens. Since it is shown below that\n34/ In 1976, the combined employer and employee Social\nSecurity tax is 11.7 percent of the first $15,300 of a\nworker's earnings.\n- 163 -\ntenure in the United States is an important determinant\nof the productivity and earnings of migrants, these\ndifferent determinants of a given level of net migration\nhave different implications for the impact of illegal\naliens. At this time, however, there is too little data\nto estimate the magnitude of the net and gross flows, or\nthe average tenure in the United States of illegal aliens.\nFinally, a complete model of immigration should\ntreat net and gross flows of immigrants as endogenous.\nMigrants tend to respond to employment opportunities\nin the United States, and in their country of origin. If\nillegal aliens are responsive to employment opportunities,\ntheir net migration rate would be lower during a recession\nin the United States. Then, they may contribute little to\nthe growth in unemployment during a recession.\nAlthough the gross and net effects of these factors\nneed to be quantified to test these hypotheses and to\nestimate the economic impact of illegal aliens, the scanty\ndata currently available cannot provide definitive answers.\nAt most they can indicate the direction of some of the\neffects.\n- 164 -\nB. DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF LEGAL AND ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS\nIf legal and illegal aliens are comparable demographically,\ninformation on the former may provide for postulating about the\nlatter. The basic source of information on the characteristics\nof foreign born residents of the United States is the 1970\nCensus of Population. These data indicate that of the 9.6\nmillion foreign born residing in the United States, 4.4 million\n(46 percent) are males. Of these males ages 16 to 64, 88\npercent were in the labor force in March 1970. Similarly,\namong foreign born women age 16 to 64, 47 percent were in the\nlabor force. The respective unemployment rates in March 1970\nfor the foreign born were 3.8 percent for males and 6.0 percent\nfor females, compared to 3.9 percent and 5.2 percent respectively\nfor the entire (native and foreign) population.\nBy way of comparison, the studies primarily of apprehended\nillegal aliens cited in the Soft Portrait in Chapter IV suggest\n35\nthat the illegal alien population is predominantly male.\nThis proportion would probably be higher if the data were\nlimited to illegal aliens who expect to stay permanently, but\nit would still be a predominantly male population.\n35/ The proportion of women among apprehended illegals may\nbe less than among all illegal aliens because of INS\napprehension policies.\n- 165 -\nThere is evidence that apprehended illegal aliens have\na high unemployment rate but are actively seeking work and\nthus show a very high labor force participation rate. Based\non a small sample, North and Houstoun estimated that the\n36 /\nunemployment rate from 1970-1975 averaged 10.2 percent.\nThis study, as well as other studies on illegals, indicates\nthat the labor force participation rate is close to 100 per-\ncent, that is nearly all are employed or actively seeking\nemployment. It appears that illegal aliens are a working\npopulation rather than one that is largely unemployed or out\nof the labor force.\nThese data imply that the unemployment rates and the\nlabor force participation rates of illegals exceed those of\nthe foreign born residents as reported in the Census. It is\nnot known, however, to what extent illegal aliens make them-\nselves particularly vulnerable to being arrested when they are\nwithout a job and are looking for work. Also, adjustments to\nU.S. labor markets take time, and the apprehended illegals\ntend to be relatively recent arrivals. It is not known to\nwhat extent the unemployment rate of illegal aliens and the\n36/ David North and Marian Houstoun, \"The Characteristics and\nRole of the Illegals in the U.S. Labor Market,\" Linton and Co.\nInc., Washington, D.C., 1976. Their sample was limited to 793\nnon-randomly selected illegal aliens who had worked for at\nleast two weeks prior to apprehension. Thus, labor force\nparticipation would be expected to be high. The sample consisted\nlargely of apprehensions, although some had not been apprehended.\n- 166 -\nprobability of being apprehended decline with tenure in the\nUnited States. Given the age and sex distribution of the\nillegal alien population (see Chapter IV) and fears of\npotential deportation if they are detected by the authorities,\ntheir high labor force participation rate is not surprising.\nTable 1 compares the occupational distribution of the\nmale illegal aliens in the North-Houstoun study with that of\nforeign born males (whose occupational distribution is similar\nto that of all U.S. males). The table indicates substantial\noccupational disparity between North-Houstoun's illegal\naliens and the foreign born residents. While nearly 80 per-\ncent of the illegal population were employed in the generally\nunskilled categories of nonfarm laborer, operative, service\nworker, and farm worker, about 40 percent of the foreign born\nmales were similarly employed. The illegal aliens in the\nNorth-Houstoun study are underrepresented in the professional\nand managerial occupations (2.9 percent compared to 27.2\npercent). The occupational differences are somewhat smaller\nin a comparison between the illegal aliens, who tend to be of\nrelatively short duration in the United States, and foreign\n37\n/\nborn men who migrated between 1965 and 1970.\n37 / The apprehended illegal aliens are likely to be more\nrecent arrivals because (a) apprehended illegals are either\ndeported or made legal and the probability of having been\napprehended sometime would increase with tenure in the United\nStates, (b) the probability of being apprehended in a year\nmay decline the longer one has been in the United States, and\n(c) illegal aliens may be more likely to have viewed migration\nto the United States as temporary.\n- 167 -\nTable 1. Occupational Distribution of Employed Foreign Born\nMales Aged 16+ and Apprehended Illegal Aliens (%)\nAll\nForeign Born Males\nForeign\nWho Entered\nApprehended\nBorn Males\n1965-1970\nIllegal Aliens\nOccupation\n(1970)\n(1970)\n(1975)\nWhite Collar Workers\n39.6\n37.7\n5.4\nProf; Tech. & Kindred\n16.9\n22.4\n1.6\nOwners; Mgrs; and\nAdmin. except Farm\n10.3\n5.3\n1.3\nSales Workers\n5.9\n3.0\n1.1\nClerical & Kindred\nWorkers\n6.5\n7.0\n1.4\nBlue Collar Workers\n45.1\n45.8\n55.2\nCraft & Kindred\nWorkers\n21.3\n17.5\n15.3\nOperatives\n17.8\n21.4\n25.1\nNonfarm Laborers\n6.0\n6.9\n14.8\nService Workers\n12.1\n13.6\n20.6\nFarm Workers\n3.2\n3.1\n18.8\nTotal\n100.0\n100.0\n100.0\nSample Size\n(1)\n(1)\n628\nNote: Detail may not add to total due to rounding.\n(1) Five percent sample of the U.S. population.\nSource: Columns 1 and 2: 1970 Census of Population, Subject Reports\nPC(2)-1A, National Origin and Language -- Table 18, p. 466. Column 3:\nDavid North and Marian Houstoun \"The Characteristics and Role of\nIllegal Aliens in the U.S. Labor Market,\" Linton and Co., Inc., 1976\nTable V-3. See Footnote 36 on p. 165.\n- 168 -\nTable 2 compares the occupational distribution of\nemployed Mexican born male U.S. residents (all and those who\nmigrated between 1965 and 1970) with that of the North-\nHoustoun sample of Mexican illegal aliens. The divergence\nin the occupational distributions between the foreign born\nand the North-Houstoun illegal aliens largely disappears\n38/\nwhen the data are limited to recent arrivals from Mexico.\nThe four unskilled categories of nonfarm laborer, operative,\nservice worker, and farm worker accounted for 84 percent of\nthe Mexican illegals while 79 percent of the resident\nMexicans that entered in 1965-70 were in these classifications.\nFor professional and managerial occupations the proportions\nwere 0.5 percent for the illegals and 3.1 percent for the\nrecent migrants. These distributions are very similar.\nIt must be noted, however, that the North-Houstoun\nsample is not a random sample of illegal aliens. It is not\nknown to what extent their procedures would tend to bias their\nsample in favor of persons with low occupational levels,\nparticularly farm workers. In addition, their sample size\nwas very small.\n38/ This is to be expected since the Mexicans were 65 percent\nof the sample of illegals and 10 percent of the foreign born\nmen who arrived between 1965 and 1970, and immigrants from\nMexico have an occupational distribution that differs from\nthat of other immigrants.\n- 169 -\nTable 2. Occupational Distribution of Employed Males Born in\nMexico and Apprehended Mexican Born Illegal Aliens (%)\nApprehended\nBorn\nBorn in Mexico,\nMexican\nin\nEntered U.S.\nIllegal\nMexico\n1965-1970\nAliens\nOccupation\n(1970)\n(1970)\n(1975)\nWhite Collar Workers\n11.7\n6.7\n1.2\nProf; Tech & Kindred\n3.2\n2.1\n0.5\nOwners; Mgrs. and\nAdmin. except Farm\n3.0\n1.0\nI\nSales Workers\n2.3\n1.0\n0.7\nClerical & Kindred\n3.2\n2.6\n--\nBlue Collar Workers\n61.2\n63.2\n54.8\nCraft & Kindred\nWorkers\n18.8\n13.8\n14.3\nOperatives\n27.4\n33.5\n22.6\nNonfarm Laborers\n15.0\n15.7\n17.9\nService Workers\n11.5\n13.4\n16.9\nFarm Workers\n15.6\n16.7\n27.0\nTotal\n100.0\n100.0\n100.0\nSample Size\n(1)\n(1)\n407\nNote: Detail may not add to total due to rounding.\n(1) Five percent sample of the U.S. population.\nSource: Columns 1 and 2: 1970 Census of Population, Subject Reports\nPC (2) -1A, National Origin and Language -- Table 18, p. 487. Column 3:\nDavid North and Marian Houstoun, \"The Characteristics and Role of\nIllegal Aliens in the U.S. Labor Market,\" Linton and Co., Inc., 1976,\nTable V-5. See footnote 36 in p. 165.\n- 170 -\nIn summary, from Chapter IV and this chapter it appears\nthat apprehended illegal aliens differ demographically from\nthe resident foreign born population. The apprehended\nillegals are more likely to be young adult males, in low\nskilled occupations, and unemployed. However, these\ndifferences narrow dramatically when the comparisons of\nillegal aliens with the foreign born are done separately for\npersons of Mexican and non-Mexican origin, and when the\nforeign born are recent immigrants. This suggests that use-\nful insights about male illegal aliens may be obtained from\nanalyses for the foreign born, if particular attention is\ngiven to the effects of country of origin and tenure in the\nUnited States. These conclusions must remain tentative and\npreliminary, however, until we obtain more and better data\non the illegal population.\nC. THE IMPACT\nThe impact of illegal aliens on the U.S. labor market is\ndifficult to assess because there is little information on\nthe number of illegal aliens in the United States, their\nearnings, schooling and job training, their knowledge of\nEnglish, and their tenure in the United States. However,\nlegal immigration may pose many of the same problems associated\nwith illegal immigration. By combining an analysis of the\nearnings and economic ramifications of immigrants in general\nwith what little is known about how illegal aliens differ\n- 171 -\nfrom legal immigrants, one can draw inferences about the\nearnings and labor market impact of illegal aliens. This\nsection first considers the earnings of foreign born men,\nand the native born sons of the foreign born, to analyze\nthe effects of tenure in the United States and country of\norigin and to see if they form a disadvantaged group. It\nthen discusses some aspects of the impact on others through\nan examination of \"guest worker\" programs.\n39/\nEarnings of Immigrants\nUpon arrival illegal aliens may be at a greater earnings\ndisadvantage than foreign born persons who are legal residents\nwith similar skills and a similar tenure in the United States\nbecause the former will tend to avoid situations that could\nresult in their illegal status being revealed to the\nauthorities. This earnings disadvantage may include wage\ndiscrimination by employers who know or suspect that they are\nillegals. It is likely, however, that over time, illegal\naliens learn how to mask their illegal status. This is\nsuggested by the large proportion of recent arrivals among\nthose apprehended by INS district office investigators. If\nso, the earnings disadvantage of illegal aliens relative to\nlegal foreign born residents would diminish over time. Thus,\n39/ The analysis of the earnings of the foreign born and\nforeign parentage is based on Barry R. Chiswick, \"The Effect\nof Americanization of Earnings,\" mimeo, July 1976, and uses\ndata from the 1970 Census of Population.\n- 172 -\nthe earnings history of foreign born persons may provide\nuseful insights into the likely experiences of illegal aliens.\nAlthough the native and foreign born white men had\napproximately the same annual earnings in 1969 (Table 3),\nthey differed in several important characteristics associated\nwith earnings. Foreign born men have a lower level of\nschooling, a mean of nearly 11 years compared to a mean of\nnearly 12 years for the native born. However, foreign born\nmen are nearly three years older and are more likely to live\nin urban areas and outside the South. Although the average\nannual earnings of the foreign born are 1 percent lower than\nthe native born, using regression analysis it is found that\nfor persons of the same schooling, age, marital status, and\nplace of residence, the foreign born have weekly earnings\nthat are 3 percent higher than those of the native born.\nAmong foreign born men the effect on earnings of an\nextra year of schooling and an extra year of labor market\nexperience prior to immigration is lower than the effect of\nschooling and experience for the native born. This may arise\nbecause there are elements in the knowledge and skills acquired\nin school and in job related training (labor market experience)\nthat are country specific. That is, knowledge and skills may\nhave a large impact on earnings in the country in which they\nare acquired.\n- 173 -\nTable 3. Means of Earnings Related Characteristics of White Men\nAge 25 to 64 by Nativity Status, 1969\nVariable\nAll Men\nNative Born\nForeign Born\n1) Earnings ($)\n9,734.09\n9,738.13\n9,662.01\n2) Education (years)\n11.84\n11.90\n10.83\n3) Age\n42.92\n42.77\n45.64\n4) Weeks Worked\n48.16\n48.22\n47.16\n5) Percent Rural\n29.39\n30.39\n11.49\n6) Percent South\n28.03\n28.88\n12.89\n7) Percent Not \"Married\nSpouse Present\"\n14.76\n14.66\n16.53\n8) Percent Foreign Born\n5.31\n0.0\n100.00\nNumber of observations\n(a) All -- 36,245\n(b) Native Born -- 34,321\n(c) Foreign Born -- 1,924\nSource: 1970 Census of Population, 1/1,000 Sample, 5 percent\nquestionnaire.\n- 174 -\nEarnings rise with tenure in the United States for the\nforeign born, presumably because after immigration they\nacquire knowledge and skills that are specific to the United\nStates. Five years after immigration the foreign born have\nearnings 10 percent lower than the native born (other things\nthe same), but earnings are approximately equal after 13 years,\n6 percent higher after 20 years, and 13 percent higher after\n30 years. For this effect to emerge, among persons of the\nsame age, schooling and area of residence, the foreign born\nwould have to have more innate ability, motivation or other\nearnings generating characteristics than the native born.\nIf the distribution of ability were the same in the United\nStates as elsewhere (schooling and age constant), this would\nsuggest a selectivity bias in migration -- that is, a tendency\nfor the migrants to be of disproportionately high ability or\nhighly motivated people.\nThere is an effect on earnings of the country of birth\nof foreign born white men. For the same schooling, age, etc.\ncountry of origin is generally not related to weekly earnings,\nwith men from Mexico and Cuba being primary exceptions.\nCompared to the earnings of other foreign born men those from\nMexico and Cuba have earnings that are lower by 33 percent\nand 24 percent, respectively.\nTo determine the cause of the lower earnings for men born\nin Mexico, these persons can be compared with native born men\n- 175 -\nof Spanish surname living in the five southwestern states.\nLargely because they have less schooling and fewer weeks of\nwork during the year, men born in Mexico had annual earnings\nthat were 22 percent lower than the native born men of Spanish\nsurname. However, for men of the same age, schooling and\nplace of residence there was no difference in earnings. The\nearnings of men born in Mexico are sensitive to the number\nof years since migration to the United States. Although\ninitially the earnings of Mexican-born men are substantially\nlower than for native born Spanish surname men, they rise\nrapidly with tenure in the United States and reach equality\nwith that of native born Spanish surname men after 15 years,\nand are higher thereafter. The Mexican/Spanish surname\nanalysis suggests that the earnings disadvantage of immigrants\nfrom Mexico compared to other immigrants reflects problems\nshared in common with native born Mexican-Americans. That\nis, it is an ethnic group, rather than an immigrant group,\neffect.\nThe Cuban born are geographically concentrated (urban\nFlorida) and are relatively recent migrants. At this time it\nis too early to determine whether their lower earnings arise\nfrom their being recent migrants and that this disadvantage\nwill decrease over time, or whether it reflects longer term\nor permanent effects possibly arising from the different moti-\nvation for migration than other recent immigrants.\n- 176 -\nThere do not appear to be adverse second generation\neffects. Men of foreign parentage have annual and weekly\nearnings about 12 percent higher than men with native born\nparents (Table 4). About one-half of this difference arises\nbecause second generation Americans are less likely to live\nin a rural area or in the South. The native parentage and\nforeign parentage have a similar level of schooling.\nEarnings are lower (by 2.0 to 4.5 percent) if a\nlanguage other than or in addition to English was spoken in\nthe home when the person was a child and it appears to matter\nwhich parent is foreign born. Compared to persons with both\nparents native born, those of foreign parentage\nhave earnings that are 7 to 8 percent higher if only the\nfather is foreign born, but there is not significant difference\nif only the mother or both parents are foreign born. Persons\nof Mexican parentage do have lower earnings, as is also true\nof Mexican-Americans whose parents were born in the United\nStates. Again, this appears to reflect an ethnic group rather\nthan an immigration group effect.\nIn brief, these findings suggest that the earnings of\nwhite foreign born men are not substantially different from\nwhite native born men. Concerns that immigrants (or their\ndescendants) form a long-term \"underclass\" appear to be unfounded.\nWhile immigrants from Mexico have lower earnings, this is also\n- 177 -\nTable 4. Means of Earnings Related Characteristics of Native\nBorn White Men, Age 25 to 64, by Nativity of Parents,\n1969\nBoth\nOne or\nparents\nboth parents\nnative\nforeign\nVariable\nAll\nborn\nborn\n1) Earnings ($)\n9,653.53\n9,441.93\n10,567.98\n2) Education (years)\n11.91\n11.92\n11.85\n3) Age\n42.72\n41.71\n47.08\n4) Weeks Worked\n48.27\n48.27\n48.28\n5) Percent Rural\n30.24\n33.14\n17.70\n6) Percent South\n29.24\n33.60\n10.37\newo.\n7) Percent not \"Married\nII\nSpouse Present\"\n14.44\n14.55\n13.96\ntb\n8) Percent Father\nForeign Born\n16.24\nN.A.\n86.41\n9) Percent Mother\nForeign Born\n13.91\nN.A.\n74.02\n10) Percent Both\nParents Foreign\nBorn\n11.36\nN.A.\n60.43\n11) Percent One\nParent Foreign\nBorn\n18.79\nN.A.\n100.00\n12) Percent in which\na Langauge other\nthan English was\nSpoken in the Home\n22.69\n12.73\n65.76\nNumber of observations\n(a) All -- 33,878\n(b) Native Parentage -- 27,512\n(c) Foreign Parentage -- 6,366\nN.A. -- not applicable\nSource: 1970 Census of Population, 1/1,000 Sample, 15 percent\nquestionnaire.\n- 178 -\ntrue of Spanish surname people whose ancestors have lived in\nthe United States for many generations. The foreign born\ninitially have less training and knowledge specific to U.S.\nlabor markets, but this disadvantage appears to be overcome\nas time passes and, other things the same, the foreign born\neventually have higher earnings than the native born.\nThe implication is that, if left undetected, illegal\naliens may experience a similar earnings history. Initially,\nhowever, their attempts to evade the authorities may result\nin somewhat lower earnings than legal foreign born residents.\nApprehended illegal aliens tend to be disproportionately of\nMexican origin and disproportionately recent arrivals and can\ntherefore be expected to have lower earnings than the overall\nnative born or foreign born population.\nBracero Program\nThe end of the Bracero Program in 1964 provided an\nexcellent opportunity to gain insight into the effects of a\nreduction of immigration on the sectors that employ unskilled\naliens. Officially sanctioned use of Mexican nationals in\nU.S. agriculture ran from 1941 to 1964 with statutory authori-\nzation granted in 1949 (Public Law 78). The use of braceros\nwas restricted to areas where the Secretary of Labor certified\nthat: (1) a shortage of bona fide domestic farm workers\nexisted; (2) the employer had unsuccessfully sought to hire\n- 179 -\nnative labor; and (3) the wages and work conditions of domestic\nagricultural workers would not be impaired.\nThe peak period was 1955-59 with over 400,000 workers\nannually. Employed in 30 states, 79 percent worked in Texas\nand California with cotton as the major crop throughout the\nperiod. During the last years (1960-64) the numbers declined\nsteadily. Demand for unskilled labor was sharply reduced by\nmechanization, larger farms and capital intensive crops in\nU.S. agriculture, as well as by stricter Department of Labor\n40/\nregulations governing the use of foreign nationals.\nA rise in farm wage rates in areas formerly using\nbraceros was one major result of the end of the Bracero\nprogram. Nationally, the hourly wage rate for farm workers\nnot receiving room and board increased 2.9 percent per year\nbetween 1955 and 1964. In 1965 it increased 5.6 percent,\nthe largest annual increase since the Korean War. The\nsharp rise in wages in 1965 was a once-and-for-all effect as\nthe supply of U.S. labor adjusted to the new circumstances.\nThe decreased use of foreign farm workers expanded\nemployment for U.S. workers by about 100,000 in 1965. At the\nAugust peak, 86,000 more Americans were employed as seasonal\nworkers than one year earlier and unemployment for agricultural\nlabor fell to 4.8 percent from the 6.5 percent in the previous\nyear. This sharp decline in unemployment was temporary, a\n40/ U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service,\nTermination of the Bracero Program: Some Effects on Farm Labor\nand Migrant Housing Needs, Rept. No. 77, June 1965, pp. 4-6.\n- 180 -\nshort-term response to an unexpectedly tight labor market for\nlegal residents working in this sector. The U.S. balance of\n41/\npayments improved by an estimated $50 million annually.\nThe impact of the Bracero program was directly addressed\n42/\nby a study of the cucumber industry in Michigan.\nPrior to\n1964 the majority of cucumber pickers were Mexicans. Although\nfarm employers had claimed that U.S. workers would not pick\ncucumbers, in actual practice, U.S. workers became available\nas wages increased and nonwage provisions of employment\nimproved. Another consequence of the curtailed supply of\nMexican labor and the higher wages was an increase in the\ncapital-labor ratio, as growers increased their use of\nmechanical harvesters. However, the increased costs of pro-\nduction lowered the income of Michigan cucumber farm owners\nand raised the price of cucumbers compared to what they would\nhave otherwise been.\nTwo empirical studies that have some bearing on these\n43/\nissues are by A. Ericson and Brian Rungeling.\nThey studied\nthe labor market impact of Mexican commuters who crossed the\n41/ Final Report, California Farm Labor Panel to Secretary\nof Labor Wirtz, 12/1/65, L.A., Calif.\n42/ John D. Mason, \"The Aftermath of the Bracero: A Study\nof the Economic Impact on the Agricultural Hired Labor Market\nof Michigan from the Termination of Public Law 78\" (unpublished\nPh.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1969).\n43/ A. Ericson, \"The Impact of Commuters on the Mexican\nAmerican Border Area,\" Monthly Labor Review, 98 (August, 1970) ;\nBrian Scott Rungeling, \"Impact of the Mexican Labor Commuter\non the Apparel Industry of El Paso, Texas,\" (unpublished Ph.D.\ndissertation, University of Kentucky, 1969).\n- 181 -\nMexican border daily to work in the United States. They found\nthat in the border cities where commuters are working, wages\nwere lower and unemployment rates higher than in the rest of\nthe border areas and the country as a whole.\nThe Bracero experience illustrates some important points\nunderlying the impact of immigrants. First, employers of alien\nlabor do not want the migration curtailed as this tends to\nraise labor costs. Second, the U.S. workers' \"disinclination\"\nfor jobs usually held by alien labor declines as there are\nimprovements in wages and working conditions. Third, U.S.\nworkers may exaggerate the adverse employment effect of alien\nworkers by assuming that a job held by an alien necessarily\nmeans one less job for a citizen.\nEuropean Guest Workers\nThe countries of northern Europe have in the last decade\nmade extensive use of imported labor for manufacturing and\n44/\nservice jobs in a manner similar to our Bracero program.\nIt is sometimes suggested that this may serve as a model for\na U.S. guest worker program for nonfarm jobs. Although there\nis little hard data on the impact of the European guest\nworkers, a review of the European experience may provide in-\nsights into the likely effects of a similar program for the\nUnited States.\n44 / In Western Europe there are about 10 million foreign\nworkers. The largest impact is in Switzerland where almost\n1 million alien workers comprise one-quarter of the labor\nforce.\n- 182 -\nThe immigration to the more developed European countries\nwas in response to the rising real incomes and wages that\naccompanied the economic growth in the post-World War II\nperiod. The rising wages for low skilled workers would have\nincreased the cost of many goods and services, and provided\nan incentive to bring in lower wage workers to mitigate the\nlow skill \"labor shortage.\" Many believe that this contributed\nto Europe's economic growth in the 1960's. With the slower rate\nof economic growth in the 1970's and particularly the recession\ntriggered by the 1973 oil crisis, the relative importance of\nguest workers has declined.\nOpinions are shifting as to the long-term economic and\npolitical benefits and costs of the guest worker programs.\nClearly, the workers migrate in response to jobs that would\npresumably otherwise not be done or would be done at a higher\ncost. When they first arrive, guest workers accept low wages,\ncome without their families and place few demands on the\nsocial service structure. Thus wages for low skilled workers\nare held down and existing industrial capacity is used more\nproductively than otherwise.\nMany migrants initially perceived themselves as temporary,\nseeking to save some money and then return to their native land.\nThey soon find that their goal to return home is overtaken by\nthe desire for the \"good life\" in the host nation, the high\nliving costs which make it more difficult to save than had\n- 183 -\nbeen anticipated, and by their acquiring skills that are oq ed\nproductive in the host country. Although they are generally, M\ncultural and often ethnic strangers, many do not return after\nthe first few years and are eventually joined by their\nfamilies or marry into the local community. Once established,\nother relatives and fellow villagers tend to join them. As\na result, the demands on housing and social services increase.\nAnd, as they acquire skills and knowledge of the country they\nbecome more competitive with native workers for jobs and\nhousing.\nAs a result of a growing number of guest workers, rising\nethnic (nationalistic) tensions, and the recent recession in\nthe developed countries, policies toward guest workers have\nchanged. However, the magnitude of the actual decline in the\nuse of guest workers is difficult to quantify. In November\n1973, Germany announced an end to new guest worker migration.\nIn mid-1974, France followed. The Swiss have declared a\nceiling of 600,000 guest workers, down from 1 million, and in\nHolland numbers are being cut severely despite economic advice\nwhich calls a steady supply a stimulus to economic growth.\nThe Dutch government has articulated its stand in a compre-\nhensive document which argues for stabilizing the present\nforeign population through family reunion but then ending\nmigration, even at the expense of a diminution in growth.\nThe European experience suggests that beyond some point it may\n- 184 -\nbe politically and socially, if not economically, better to\nmove capital and modern technology to unskilled labor in the\npoorer countries, instead of bringing unskilled labor (and\nthe resulting social conflict) to the developed nations.\n- 185 -\nD. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION\nWe would expect a large net inflow of illegal alien\nworkers to have an important impact on the economic conditions\nof the U.S. resident population. The illegal migration appears\nto be in response to better job opportunities in the United\nStates than in the country of origin, and an inability to\nacquire a legal status. With regard to the domestic economic\nimpact, the important questions are the nature and magnitude\nof the effects on the total income received by the legal U.S.\npopulation and on the distribution of this income through\nchanges in the occupational distribution, unemployment,\nrelative wages, profits and relative prices. Although quali-\ntative statements can be made, given our limited information\non the size and characteristics of the illegal alien labor\nforce, and on the supply and demand responses in the markets\nfor factors of production and for goods and services, it is not\npossible at this time to quantify these impacts.\nTo the extent that illegal aliens are predominantly lower\nskilled workers, their presence tends to lower the wages and\nworking conditions of U.S. workers in low skilled jobs. In\nthe adjustment process, domestic unemployment tends to increase.\nOver time, however, if the illegal aliens are able to mask their\nillegal status they can acquire skills and knowledge more\nrelevant to U.S. labor markets and their earnings would\nincrease. They then become more competitive with more skilled\nU.S. workers.\n- 186 -\nThe presence of these illegal alien workers tends to raise\nthe average real income of the legal resident population. This\neffect is mitigated to the extent that the illegals' use of\nsocial services and their impact on the criminal justice\nsystem exceeds their contribution in the form of taxes. Most\napprehended illegal aliens are young adult males who seek to\navoid contact with the authorities. If they are representative\nof the illegal alien population, the use of services by illegal\naliens is likely to be relatively small. However, if they were\nto bring their families with them, their use of social services\nmight exceed the value of their taxes.\nPublic policies with regard to illegal aliens (and\nthe size of legal immigration) should take full account\nof the effects on both the total income of the legal\npopulation and the distribution of this income. However,\nwhile fewer restrictions on immigration may increase the\naverage real income of the resident population, the\nincrease creates declining real incomes for those most\ncompetitive with the new immigrants. Historically,\npolicy has been directed at minimizing or eliminating\nsuch adverse effects.\n- 187 -\nThis chapter has outlined the variables and parameters\nof interest in a study of the economic impact of immigrants,\nwhether legal or illegal. For many of these parameters a\npriori analysis indicates the sign, or direction of the effect.\nFurther research is needed, however, to extend the theoretical\nanalysis and to quantify the relevant parameters. The latter\nis essential for the estimation of the magnitude of net effects.\nThis type of analysis would provide insight into the optimal\nsize and structure of immigration, and serve as an aid in the\nreevaluation of immigration policy.\n- 188 -\nCHAPTER VI - ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION: SOCIAL ISSUES\nThe issue of employment and earnings of illegals\ncomprisesone important component of the domestic impact\nof illegal aliens. A variety of other issues are presented\nby the undocumented migration of large numbers of people to\nthe United States. Loosely defined as the social issues,\nthey are most keenly felt at the community level where they\naffect in very basic ways thousands of individuals and\ninstitutions daily. The framework within which the social\nissues develop is an outgrowth or extension of the migration\nprinciples discussed in Chapter II. It should again be noted\nthat migration is to some extent influenced by laws and\npolicies of host and sending nations. However, it is\nfundamentally characterized by general principles and\npatterns which transcend the particular institutions and\nregulations of individual countries. This same theme applies\nto re-settlement of population groups.\n45/\nA. SETTLEMENT PATTERNS OF MIGRANTS\nThe movement of migrant workers from one country to\nanother proceeds in general according to four stages.\n45 This section is based on Marshall, Ray, \"Economic Factors\nInfluencing the International Migration of Workers\", Paper\npresented at Weatherhead Foundation, San Antonio, April 15,\n1975; and Power, Jonathan, \"Europe's Army of Immigrants\",\nbased on paper commissioned for International Institute\nfor Environment and Development, 1974.\n- 189 -\n1. Young, unmarried adults predominate having moved\nfrom rural areas of the sending country (ies).\nOften they find employment in the agricultural\nsector. The migrants' intention tends to be to\nremain temporarily and return home with enough money\nto improve life there. These workers are generally\nthe more highly educated and aggressive of the\nworking classes from which they originate.\n2. Married men join the younger, unmarried adults\nattracted by stories of opportunity told by\nreturning workers. In both the first and second\nstages, there is considerable movement back and\nforth between source and host countries and the\nhost country invariably treats the workers as\ntemporary.\n3. Single adults marry natives of the host country\nand married men send for their wives and families\nto join them. Movement between countries declines.\nThis stage is brought on by a basic change in\naspirations, skills and acculturation of the worker.\nSending country conditions no longer appear attrac-\ntive relative to life in the host country and hope\nfor the future attaches to the new home. It is with\nthe change in aspirations that the conditions which\nturn temporary workers into permanent residents are\nset in motion. The change in aspirations is fueled\nby the increased use of migrants in occupations\nother than those of the initial penetration point.\nFavorable experience by host country employers\ncreates the continuing demand which renders the\nprocess self-sustaining.\n4. Supporting populations of ethnic employers,\nreligious leaders, social service agencies and\nsmall businesses appear. They cater to the new\ngroups and are sustained by them.\nThus alien workers often first enter the host country\nwith the objective of earning money to gain particular\nobjectives and return home. While many return, many remain\nundergoing a change in aspirations born of experiences and\nconditions no longer compatible with realities in their\n- 190 -\nnative country. This change is reinforced by positive\nemployer reaction to the use of foreign workers.\nHost countries, on the other hand, tend to adopt\nmeasures which restrict employment of migrants and their\npattern of movement to the second stage attempting to\nmaximize the productivity of the workers and minimize the\nnet burden of their non-working family members on the social\ninfrastructure and fabric of the host society. Restrictions\nusually include limiting the employment of the aliens to\noccupations native workers spurn. The general tendency of\nnative workers to move out of low status jobs is charac-\nteristic of economic growth and creates a demand for immi-\ngrant workers to fill \"undesirable jobs\" which, if not\nredefined, stimulate migration.\nDespite the attempt, restrictions rarely succeed in\npreventing permanent settlements. The social and economic\nforces which bring about a change in the alien's aspirations\nand job opportunities are greater than the attempts made to\ncheck them. Employers will substitute foreign workers for\nnatives as quickly as possible. Friction between native\nand alien workers tends to be minimal in a growing economy\nbut intensifies during times of unemployment. The competi-\ntion for jobs exacerbates social relations, even though it\nmay increase the income of the native population as a whole.\nTension is magnified by the family settling features of stage\n- 191-\nthree causing competition for housing and increased\nparticipation in public programs. When racial and ethnic\ndifferences enter in, conflict is even more likely.\nOver time, as the foreign worker's aspirations\nincorporate those of the host country, his initial\nsatisfaction, and more particularly that of his children,\nshifts to dissatisfaction with discrimination and a desire\nto obtain equal rights. The second generation acquires\ngreater skills and tends to shun the low status jobs\nfilled by their parents. The demand for cheap labor\nremains, filled, presumably, by fresh supplies of\n\"temporary\" foreign workers.\nThis model is based largely on the experience of\nworker importation areas such as Europe and the Virgin\nIslands. Though we cannot prove or disprove its\nspecific features at this time, the research which has\nbeen done on U.S. illegal immigration (see Chapters IV\nand V) tends to support it. Most likely different\nregions of the country, different ethnic groups and\ndifferent economic sectors are passing through divergent\npoints of the sequence simultaneously. Under certain\ncircumstances stages may even be bypassed. Nonetheless\nit offers a framework for understanding some of the\nsocial issues attendant to migration.\n- 192 -\nB. THE WELFARE ISSUE\nMuch of the attention which has been given to the illegal\nalien turns on the question of enforcement, jobs, and welfare.\nSocial impact is generally treated via contentions that\nillegals place substantial burdens on the welfare system.\nVarying claims, not necessarily supported by hard data, have\nbeen made by individuals and by local units of government on\nthis point. Some examples of these claims are:\n-- A Los Angeles County grand jury recently\ncited an annual cost of $3.7 million in\nhealth care and welfare burdens caused by\nillegals due to 3,500 aliens receiving\nassistance. It stated that in 1975, $10.8\nmillion was expended on medical care of\nillegals. HEW has been sent a bill for\nthis care as the county defines the problem\nas a federal one.\n-- Los Angeles County officials have estimated\nthat the termination of welfare to 2,600 illegal\naliens has saved $2.7 million in federal, state\nand county funds.\n-- New York City alleges that there are nearly\n2 million illegals in the metropolitan area\n- 193 -\ndraining health, education and welfare services\nfor which revenue sharing funds, allocated on\nthe basis of U.S. Census counts, are insufficient.\nThey have called on the federal government to\nremove the aliens or pay for the expenses the\nimpacted communities disproportionately incur.\n-- San Diego County officials have stated that during\nthe years 1971-1975 approximately $1.9 million\nhas been spent on 943 illegal alien patients with\nthe largest category of care being deliveries of\nbabies.\n-- The Immigration and Naturalization Service\nfrequently quotes a figure of $13 billion as the\nnational annual cost in services of illegal aliens.\nIn the broadest sense, public services could include\npolice and fire protection, water and sewage treatment,\nhighway construction, the availability of parks and\nrecreational facilities and the enforcement of labor laws\nwhich protect the rights and health of workers. Welfare\nrefers to participation in one or more programs which\nassist low income families -- General Assistance, Supple-\nmentary Security Income, Medicaid, Aid to Families with\nDependent Children and Food Stamps, Social Security and\nUnemployment Insurance. Families headed by males who are\n- 194 -\nnot disabled and not aged cannot get benefits from these\nprograms with the exception of Food Stamps. Social Security\nand Unemployment Compensation are also income transfer\nprograms but benefits are contingent upon prior contribution\nthrough work rather than low income.\nGeneral Assistance\nGeneral Assistance is a wholly state-funded benefit\nprogram for unemployable persons who are economically\ndisadvantaged. The programs are usually used to provide\nbenefits to such individuals while their application for\nparticipation in federal programs is pending. The regula-\ntions governing General Assistance are different in each\nstate. While some establish citizenship requirements,\nthere is no information on whether or not a substantial\nproblem exists. However, since General Assistance is a\ntransitional program, illegal aliens would become subject\nto federal program requirements as their applications are\nprocessed. It is also a very small program. Therefore,\nit is unlikely that any significant amount of assistance\nis given to illegals under General Assistance.\n- 195 -\nSupplementary Security Income (SSI)\nTitle XVI of the Social Security Act establishes the\nSupplementary Security Income program. SSI is designed to\n\"provide supplemental security income to individuals who\nhave attained age 65 or are blind or disabled.\" The legis-\nlation prohibits the delivery of services to illegal aliens\nby requiring that a participant be:\na resident of the United States and either\n(i) a citizen or (ii) an alien lawfully\nadmitted for permanent residence or other-\nwise in the United States under color of\nlaw (Section 1614(a)).\nAlthough not legislatively mandated, the same requirement has\nbeen adopted through regulation by the following programs:\nMedicaid, Aid to Families with Dependent Children and Food\nStamps. As the data in Chapter IV suggests, few illegals\nare aged and could not therefore get SSI benefits.\nMedicaid\nThe Medicaid program is authorized by Title XIX of the\nSocial Security Act. Federal funds are made available to\nsupplement state funds in providing medical services to the\neconomically disadvantaged. While the legislation is silent\nas to alienage/citizenship, HEW regulations specify that\nreimbursement cannot be made for services to illegal aliens.\nThe language of the regulations is identical to that of the\nSupplementary Security Income program. Some states have\n- 196 -\nrequested reimbursement for expenditures in providing services\nto illegal aliens arguing that:\n1. To deny emergency room treatment to\nanyone is unconscionable\n2. The denial of services to illegal\naliens creates a potential health\nhazard for the entire population\n3. Immigration law and consequently\nillegal aliens are a federal\nresponsibility.\nHowever, these arguments are not acceptable under current\nregulations. Only AFDC and Social Security participants\nand the \"medically indigent\" are eligible for benefits.\nAid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC)\nTitle IV of the Social Security Act authorizes federal\npayments to the states for programs to furnish \"financial\nassistance and rehabilitation and other services to needy\ndependent children and the parents or relatives with whom\nthey are living to help maintain and strengthen family life.\"\nIntact families with a non-disabled male head cannot generally\nget benefits. The AFDC legislation does not establish require-\nments relating to citizenship/alienage. However, this condition\nis established by regulation.\nFood Stamps\nThe Food Stamp program enables low income families to\npurchase coupons at a discount which are redeemable for food\npurchases. The legislation for the program is silent on the\n- 197 -\nissue of citizenship. Requirements have been established by\nregulation and are identical to those found in the Supplementary\nSecurity Income legislation. In the Food Stamp Certification\nHandbook (August-1974), state agencies administering the\nprogram are instructed to verify the citizenship or legal\nstatus in \"questionable cases.\" They are further advised that\n\"to require verification for all cases would be an unreasonable\nimposition.\" While state programs are not required to use\nany specific application form, a recommended form, which\nincludes a question on citizenship, is published in the Hand-\nbook. It is also interesting to note that those agencies\nwhich administer the program are directed to report suspected\nillegal aliens to the INS.\nFederal Old Age Survivors, and Disability Insurance Benefits\nSocial Security)\nThe Social Security program furnishes retirement income\nto persons over 65 years of age and to the disabled. Since\nit depends on employee contributions, it is different from tax\nFORD\nbase programs. Since 1972, applicants for Social Security\ncards have been required by law to provide proof of citizen-\nship or legal residence. Consequently, there should be no\ncitizenship issue with recent applicants. No provision of the\nlegislation or regulations would prohibit illegal aliens from\nreceiving benefits if they secured a card prior to 1972.\nHowever, benefits depend on past contributions which is based\non work history under Social Security.\n- 198 -\nUnemployment Insurance\nThis income transfer program is a set of programs which\nprovide income for workers who are unemployed. Some occupations,\nsuch as agriculture, are not covered. Largely financed by a\npayroll tax, neither the authorizing legislation nor the\nregulations make any mention of citizenship. While individual\nstates could possibly establish such requirements, none has\nthem at present. A proposed amendment to the authorizing\nlegislation would establish such a requirement nationally if\nit became law (proposed amendment to HR-102210). At present,\nhowever, illegal aliens who work in jobs covered by the program\nhave the same right to benefits as any other worker. However,\na work history requirement is an integral part of the program.\n- 199 -\nThus most public assistance programs are required by\nregulation or statute to screen for citizenship status. We\nhave not attempted to ascertain the effectiveness of these\nscreening procedures. In addition, eligibility and use of wel-\nfare programs are largely restricted to women without husbands\nbut with dependent children, the elderly, the sick who are\npoor, and the disabled. Relatively few non-aged men are public\nassistance program users except through Unemployment Compen-\nsation and Food Stamps. It is difficult to make generalized\nstatements about the characteristics of illegals or their impact\non the basis of the limited data available. However the data\ncurrently available points to an illegal alien population which\nis overwhelmingly young (70% under 30) and employed, character-\nistics unlike those of public assistance recipients. Substan-\ntial proportions of illegals seem to be sending remittances to\nthe country of origin (75%) and paying social security (77%)\nThe North-Houstoun research shows that only 1.5% used food\nstamps, 4% collected unemployment and 4.6% received free health\ncare.\nNeither the allegations of massive incursions into wel-\nfare, more precisely income transfer programs by illegals,\nnor the limited research which shows the opposite, are neces-\nsarily reliable. A great deal of attention should be given\nto the development of a profile of the illegal alien popula-\ntion characteristics which might serve as the basis of a com-\nparison with the profile of those receiving public assistance.\n- 200 -\nThe task forces have examined the subject closely, however,\nand find the welfare fraud arguments to be somewhat overdrawn\non the basis of the current evidence.\nInstead, welfare usage should be regarded as but one\nof a range of issues that arise as handmaidens of settlement.\nOur model suggests that welfare usage would increase in the\nlatter stages of settlement. Before any accurate assessments\ncan be made about current and prospective welfare burdens,\nwe will need to know more about: (a) the extent of family\nrelationships involved in our illegal alien numbers; (b) the\nduration of stay and mobility of illegal alien groups; and\n(c) the efficacy of procedures to assure that only eligible\nindividuals receive benefits.\n-201 -\nC.\nSOCIAL AND COMMUNITY IMPACT\nPopulation Growth\nIn recent years, the U. S. has experienced declining\nbirth rates and an attendant slowing in overall growth. As a\nresult the subject of population growth has begun to surface\nas an important component of immigration policy considera-\ntions. Since we do not know the extent of illegal immigra-\ntion today, we cannot define the proportion of population\ngrowth it creates. However, it is instructive to assess the\nrole legal immigration plays in population growth as an avenue\ntoward revealing the relationship between population growth\nand illegal immigration.\nImmigration has, since the 1965 amendments to the\nImmigration and Nationality Act, assumed increased importance\nas a major contributor to U.S. population growth. It is less\nthan we experienced during the peak years prior to World War I\nbut more than that of the post-World War II years.\nThe 1972 report of the Commission on Population Growth\nand the American Future shows that the relative importance of\nimmigration as a component of population growth has and will\nincrease significantly as a decline in birthrates lowers the\nnatural increase. Between 1960 and 1970 about 16 percent of\ntotal population was due to net immigration. If net\n- 202 -\nimmigration is maintained at the current rate (approximately\n400,000 per year) and all families have an average of two\nchildren, immigration between now and 2000, plus descendants,\nwill number 15 million, nearly one-fourth of the total\nprojected population increase for that period.\nIn July 1976, the Subcommittee of Population Education,\nFederal Interagency Committee on Education published a report\nentitled Population Education and the Federal Role. The\nreport notes the impact of international migration on U.S.\nsociety. If both fertility and illegal immigration continue\nat current levels, all growth in the U.S. will derive from\nimmigration by the year 2035. Today legal immigrants\naccount for about 30% of the U.S. population growth and\nbecause of the present low fertility the relative contri-\nbutions of immigration to population growth is increasing\nyearly.\nNot only the growth but the distribution of population\nis affected. Immigrants prefer metropolitan areas and\nconcentrate in a few. states. Assuming current tendencies\nprevail, two-thirds will settle in six states -- New York,\nCalifornia, New Jersey, Illinois, Texas and Massachusetts.\nImmigration as defined and experienced by the United\nStates pursuant to the law is a central factor in growth.\nTo the extent that some workings of the current law\ncontribute to illegal immigration, and to the extent that\nwe have been relatively unable to control the sheer size\n- 203 -\nof such a migration, immigration becomes all the more\nimportant as a determinant in projecting future population\ngrowth. Levels of illegal immigration are not accurately\nknown, but most recent estimates run to several million\nyearly. Since FY 1974, INS apprehension statistics for\nillegal aliens have hovered around three-quarters of a\nmillion annually. At an estimate of 1 million persons per\nyear, the United States population increase of 1.2 million\npersons in 1975 is in effect doubled as a result of illegal\nimmigration. The following table of U.S. Population Pro-\njections gives us some indication of the effects of legal\nand illegal immigration given the historically low, current\nfertility rate of 1.8 children per woman and given the\nreplacement fertility rate of 2.1 children per woman.\nAlthough this information is insufficient to judge the\nextent of the impact that immigration, both legal and illegal,\nwill have on the U.S., it is sufficient to indicate that\nserious consideration must be given to the question of the\nproper level of immigration in the context of dwindling\nresources and desired growth.\n- 204 -\nU.S. POPULATION PROJECTIONS\n1.8 TFR plus\n1.8 TFR plus\n2.1 TFR plus\n2.1 TFR plus\nYEAR\n400,000 immig.\n1.2 M immig.\n400,000 immig.\n1.2 M immig.\n1980\n222,966,000\n223,548,000\n227,253,000\n227,852,000\n1985\n232,526,000\n236,050,000\n241,517,000\n145,187,000\n1990\n240,999,000\n247,393,000\n255,021,000\n261,754,000\n1995\n247,746,000\n256,844,000\n267,084,000\n276,776,000\n2000\n253,252,000\n265,289,000\n278,205,000\n291,170,000\n2005\n258,129,000\n273,980,000\n288,986,000\n306,213,000\n2010\n262,400,000\n282,954,000\n299,374,000\n321,883,000\n2015\n265,758,000\n291,420,000\n308,980,000\n337,302,000\n2020\n267,877,000\n298,826,000\n317,412,000\n351,855,000\n2025\n268,608,000\n305,173,708\n324,470,000\n365,511,000\nThe first column of data assumes a continuation of the current fertility\nrate of 1.8 children per woman, a legal immigration rate of 400,000\nimmigration, and an illegal immigration rate of zero. The second column\nassumes a continuation of the current fertility rate, plus a legal\nimmigration rate of 400,000 and an illegal immigration rate of 800,000.\nThe third column assumes an increase in fertility to replacement level\n(2.1 children per woman) by 1980, a legal immigration rate of 400,000\nand an illegal immigration rate of zero. Column four assumes an\nincrease in fertility to replacement level by 1980, plus a legal\nimmigration rate of 400,000, and an illegal immigration rate of 800,000.*\n*Assumptions\n1 Population size equals the total U.S. population including armed forces overseas as\nof July 15, 1975 (by age and sex).\n2 Age and sex structure of all immigrants (both legal and illegal) is the same.\n(Source: Census Bureau, Current Population Reports, Series P-25, No. 601, p. 134.)\n3The survival ratios are different for males and females but are similar for all\nraces and for natives and immigrants. (Source: Census Bureau, Current Population\nReports, Series P-25, No. 601, p. 130. )\n4 That average age-specific fertility rates for women age 15-49 are used. Fertility\nrates apply to all women by single year of age, regardless of race or nationality.\n5 The timing of births (proportionate distribution of births to women) is similar\nto the actual childbearing pattern of 1973. The timing of childbearing is assumed\nto be the same for all races and for natives and immigrations. (Source: Census\nBureau, Current Population Reports, Series P-25, No. 601, p. 125.)\n- 205 -\nINS Enforcement\nImmigration policy in general and its effects on\ncertain groups within the society in particular have\nalways been the source of varying degrees of controversy\nand bitterness. Today the most vigorous opposition to\nenforcement policy comes from the ethnic groups and\ncommunities that find significant numbers of illegal\naliens in their midst. Their attitudes, rooted in negative\nexperiences and a history of racial-type conflicts, have\nthe potential for causing serious conflict at the local\nlevel in the future.\nTwo distinct types of community organizations are\nopenly critical of INS enforcement policy. One of these\ncan be classified as ethnic civil rights organizations,\nthe other as groups which defend the rights of aliens\nin general.\n1. Ethnic Community Organizations\nThese groups are composed of American citizens\nwho are members of an identifiable ethnic group and\nconsider themselves singled out for enforcement\nemphasis because of their cultural origins. They\nresent having to prove that they are U.S. citizens\nwhen other Americans are not required to do SO.\nBecause the majority of the enforcement effort is\nnow directed at Mexican illegal aliens, it is prin-\ncipally Hispanic groups that have raised charges\nof civil rights violations. Any enforcement activity\nwhich has the appearance of being targeted towards\nHispanic or any other ethnic community will continue\nto inspire strong criticism.\n- 206 -\n2. Aliens' Rights Organizations\nAccording to these organizations, aliens have\nrights under the Constitution which are\nconsistently violated by INS. Such organizations\nwould like to have the rights of aliens recognized\nand clearly defined by law. Such rights may include:\nfreedom from discrimination in employment, and recogni-\ntion of the right to receive services, the right to\ncounsel. Some of these groups would like the U.S. to\nadopt a much more open immigration policy.\nThe strongest reaction to INS enforcement activities\nin the past has been caused by residential or community\nenforcement tactics. Residential enforcement involves\nsurrounding an entire city block and questioning everyone,\nraiding movie theaters and boarding houses and questioning\npersons at bus stops on their way to work. These techniques\nantagonized many persons because they seemed to imply that\nmembers of these communities were second-class citizens\nor were all here illegally. Many complaints have been\nin response to such raids; INS has recently abandoned\nsuch techniques.\nCommunity reaction to employer-focused enforcement is\nmuch milder. Such activity bears little apparent relation-\nship to the ethnic group even though it may make up the bulk\nof the employees. If the employer is cooperative, the\ninspection may be limited to the examination of personnel\nrecords. If the visit is in response to a tip, INS may\nalready have the names of the persons it is seeking.\n- 207 -\nMore than 80 percent of the illegal aliens apprehended\nby INS are located at the border or a few miles inland.\nMuch of the border enforcement activity generates relatively\nlittle adverse reaction. If the apprehension is made under\ncircumstances which clearly indicate that the individual\nhas just crossed the border at other than a port of entry,\nno civil rights violation can be alleged. However, the\nquestioning of individuals at bus stations close to the\nborder and at checkpoints along the highway remains a\nsource of friction between the Border Patrol and the\nMexican-American community in the Southwest. Persons\nchosen for questioning are usually dark skinned and\nconsequently the Hispanic community feels singled out\nfor enforcement emphasis. The involvement of local law\nenforcement agencies in immigration activities gives rise\nto additional problems. These agencies are often unaware\nof usual policies in the enforcement of immigration law\nor hostile to the feelings of ethnic communities.\nWhile the basis for community hostility is apparent,\nthe dilemma which it highlights is difficult. How does\nan agency enforce the law in a free society when the\nillegal act is the presence of an individual who cannot\nreadily be identified? Officials know that there are large\nnumbers of Hispanic illegal aliens and the society wants\n- 208 -\nthe most enforcement and efficiency possible for the\ntax dollar. Therefore greater screening and resources\nbefall Hispanic origin individuals who may believe them-\nselves unduly singled out because it makes\nstrategic sense.\nFurthermore the Hispanic community itself is in\ndisagreement over the dilemma. In a recent Gallup Poll\n72% of the Latin American origin group interviewed felt\nthat a law against hiring illegal aliens should be passed\nand 46% felt illegal aliens should be sent back to their\nhomes. However, another attitude survey, conducted by the\nUniversity of San Diego School of Law, reports that while\n45% of Hispanic respondents support law enforcement policies\nwhich target employers, only 16% indicated they would be\nlikely to assist in the effort by reporting the presence\nof an illegal alien. Furthermore, 44% agreed with the\nproposition that illegals take employment opportunities\nfrom U.S. citizens but only 7% felt they ever failed to\nobtain employment or lost a job to an illegal alien.\nEnforcement policy in the past has subjected the\nMexican-American and other ethnic communities to inconveniences\nwhich were not borne by Americans as a whole. While INS\npolicy has already been modified in response to mounting\ncomplaints, every effort should be made to ensure that the\nrights of all Americans are respected and that our\nimmigration policy does not convey or appear to convey\n- 209 -\nsecond-class citizenship to any ethnic group. Recommenda-\ntions containing measures that would help to ameliorate\nthe problems faced by ethnic communities as a result of\nthe influx of illegal aliens are contained at the end of\nthis chapter.\nIn addition, a great deal of confusion exists regarding\nthe legal rights of both legal resident aliens and illegal\naliens posing another interesting philosophical question:\nWhat are the legal rights of persons who have no legal\nstatus here?\nClarification of these questions would\nbe of enormous benefit to law enforcement agencies, the\nadministrators of public assistance programs, American\nethnic communities and legal resident aliens.\nAnti-Alien Sentiment\nAmericans are proud of presenting the nation of\nimmigrants image pointing to the Statue of Liberty and the\nsentiments it represents. In fact, behavior toward newcomers\nfrom strange lands bringing different ways has throughout\nour history been anything but benevolent. There continue\nto be strong nativist attitudes and institutions in this\ncountry which do not view immigrants as desirable. The\n- 210 -\nillegal aspect of recent immigration serves to intensify\nthese feelings and can cause severe strain and tension.\nAlong with prejudice, there is a growing antipathy\ntoward the illegal which springs from the perception that\n(a) jobs and services are being expropriated by illegals\nat the expense of natives and the public Treasury; and\n(b) illegals are in violation of the law and therefore\ncannot be tolerated.\nThese attitudes have been revealed in several large\nmetropolitan areas primarily in two forms:\n1. Proposals for state legislation and local\nordinances barring illegals from eligibility for\nemployment or participation in services. Six\nstate legislatures are currently considering\nlegislation which would make it illegal for\nemployers to employ illegal aliens. 46/ New York\nis closest to achieving passage and sounds a\ncommon theme: if the Federal government won't\nact to protect us from the influx, we will take\nmeasures to protect ourselves. Reports of local\nactions designated to keep the children of illegals\nout of public schools and ineligible for related\nservices are also beginning to appear.\n2. Organization or reactivation of community associa-\ntions around the issue of illegals and their debilitating\neffect on neighborhoods and the survival of a certain\nway of life. These groups exert considerable political\npressure on their legislative representatives. More\nimportant they create severe polarization within\nimpacted areas which results in generalized suspicion\ntoward \"foreigners\" regardless of their legal status\nand a menacing form of scapegoating which ties the\nproblems of housing, urban flight, overburdened services\nand quality of life to the presence of illegal aliens.\n46 In a February, 1976 decision, DeCanas V. Bica, the Supreme\nCourt held that a California state law which prohibits an\nemployer from knowingly employing an illegal alien is not\nunconstitutional as a regulation of immigration, a power which\nrests exclusively with the federal government. It referred to\nthe California state courts the question of whether the statute\nitself would conflict with the INA or other federal laws or\nregulations.\n- 211 -\nBoth the problems of INS enforcement and anti-\nalien sentiment have serious community strife potential.\nThe settlement thesis outlined earlier in this chapter\nindicates that tension appears in the fourth stage, when\nfamilies move permanently into certain areas and support\npopulations appear. There is evidence to support the\ncontention that in some of our large metropolitan areas\nthis final stage has developed. The friction which\naccompanies it will be felt most keenly by the legal\nimmigrant and ethnic populations whose very real need\nfor assistance in overcoming culture shock, language\nbarriers and the like may be met by an atmosphere of dis-\ntrust and whose economic and political power to mitigate\nit is minimal.\nFederal-State-Local Relations\nThe illegal alien issue presents a peculiar dis-\nproportionality in the roles of respective levels of\ngovernment. Problems are felt at the local and regional\nlevel but local officials have few tools with which to\nrespond for the laws involved are federal. On the other\nhand the Federal government administers immigration policy,\nsomewhat mindful of its long-run implications for the\nnation as a whole, but far removed from the state and\nlocal levels of government where the outcome of its\nactions are felt.\n- 212 -\nIntra-governmental communication and cooperation on\nthis issue is very important and has been virtually non-\nexistent. This neglect has given rise to unrealistic\ndemands from local governments for millions of dollars\nin reimbursements for services allegedly rendered to\nillegals. It has created lawsuits over fiscal responsibility\nas well as serious criticism from publicly funded and\nprivate community agencies who handle ever increasing\ncaseloads. It has caused some local law enforcement\nofficials to refuse to contact INS officials when illegal\nstatus is uncovered in the course of their work because\ntheir assistance in immigration work costs necessary\ncommunity support in other aspects of their law enforce-\nment responsibilities.\nThe prospect which faces state and local government\nofficials is a somber one. The settling in of substantial\nnumbers of illegals has produced underground communities\nof people whose existence depends on evading and avoiding\ncontact with the law and with government in any form.\nAbove all we are a nation of laws dependent upon the\ninstitutions and systems which are created and regulated\nby law to maintain justice and equity in our communal\nexistence. The illegal alien, both adds to the burdens upon\nsociety's infrastructures and is fearful of using services\nbecause it increases the likelihood of discovery and appre-\nhension. This reluctance is a further dimension of the\n- 213 -\nissue. People who are underground cannot be counted for\nplanning or fiscal allocation purposes; they cannot be\nprotected from abuse on the job or from landlords, dis-\ncrimination, disease, or crime; they may avoid education\nfor children; and they are unable or reluctant to assert\npolitical or legal rights. Thus there is the possibility\nof a substantial underclass which must avoid the legitimate\ninstitutions and government of the society in order to\nsurvive. This has long-range implications for education,\nhousing, criminal justice planning, and other important\nareas of primary state and local government responsibility.\n- 214 -\nD.\nCONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS\nMigrants settle in new areas according to a general\npattern which consists of four stages. In the initial\nstages they come singly with the intention of remaining\nonly temporarily usually for economic reasons. However\nfor many, aspirations and opportunities change and become\ntransferred to the host country. This brings on the\nlatter stages when families are formed or sent for and\nsupport populations appear. The latter stages can\ncause tension and conflict over jobs and services with\nsome groups in the native population. Very likely\ndifferent areas of the country and different illegal\npopulation groups are at varying stages of this process\ntoday.\nAllegations of heavy illegal alien use of tax-\nsupported income transfer programs are common. An\nexamination of these programs shows that the majority\ndepend on characteristics such as old age, female\nhead of household, or disabled for eligibility. Present\ninformation shows that illegal aliens are unlikely to be\nmaking heavy use of such programs due to very different\npersonal characteristics. Our tentative conclusion is\nthat the welfare use issue is overdrawn. However, final\njudgment is dependent on better information delineating\nthe characteristics of the illegal population. Several\n- 215 -\nother social issues merit consideration. Population\ngrowth, discriminatory effects of enforcement, anti-alien\nsentiment and the formation of underground communities\nare of concern. These issues require a great deal of\nfurther analysis but will become increasingly important\nas settlement proceeds into the final stage. The federal\ngovernment must work far more closely with state and\nlocal governments at which level impacts are most dramatically\nfelt particularly in the area of social tension and strife,\na characteristic of permanent settlement.\nRecommendations\n1.\nEnforcement activities which minimize community and\nethnic hostility should be stressed. Border enforcement\nand employer targeting are far less controversial than\nresidence-oriented enforcement and are therefore\npreferable. Greater attention should be given to\novercoming the negative effects of INS practices on\nethnic, particularly Hispanic, groups. This should\ninclude:\n-\nAn expanded public information and education\nprogram to keep communities aware of the law, INS\npolicies and practices and to enlist voluntary\ncooperation and support for enforcement from\nethnic communities. This emphasis should build\nupon the \"neighborhood storefront\" concept recently\ntested in Chicago. Under such a program, persons\ncan obtain information about their immigration status\nwithout risking apprehension by INS.\n- 216 -\n-\nEstablish a grievance mechanism that would quickly\nredress injuries resulting from overzealous\nenforcement.\n-\nEstablish a program to ensure consistency between\nINS policies and those of assisting law enforce-\nment agencies.\n-\nClarify questions relating to aliens' rights,\nincluding legislation if necessary.\n2.\nThe illegal immigration issue must be treated in the\ncontext of population growth and the long-term effects\non birthrates in the U.S. This requires detailed\nanalysis and improved information and should be intro-\nduced as an important variable in the current debate\nover dwindling resources and growth.\n3.\nDevelop close communication and coordination with state\nand local units of government where illegal aliens\nlive and work. Cooperation should be sought immediately\nin such areas as:\n-\nenforcement coordination;\n-\nU.S.-Mexico border problems;\n-\nresearch and information;\n-\nadministrative program and legal procedures for\nexpenditures in government programs; and\n-\nlegislation.\n- 217 -\nCHAPTER VII\nDILEMMAS FOR THE FUTURE\nImmigration matters present challenging and perplexing\nquestions. As a nation we have shown decided ambivalence\nabout immigration policy maintaining an exclusionary law\nas our basic statement of policy and at the same time pointing\nwith pride to our heritage as a nation of immigrants and\nto the idealism symbolized in the Statue of Liberty's\nwelcome to the oppressed of the world. We cling to the\nbelief that ours should be a land offering opportunity to\nthose who would help to build it but we have been willing\nto discriminate blatantly over time in identifying those\nwhom we welcome. Immigration is often treated in highly\nemotional, politically charged terms yet implementation\nof the system necessary to carry out the law has been low\non our national list of funding priorities, vesting extra-\nordinary discretion in the enforcement agencies on matters\nwhich affect individual lives in the most fundamental\nand dramatic ways.\nTo formulate policy on the issue of illegal aliens,\nthe government must consider the larger question of immigra-\ntion policy in general. Today comprehensive planning on\nimmigration matters presents several major dilemmas for the\nsociety which must be acknowledged as central to the debate.\n- 218 -\nA.\nCONTROL\nFirst is the issue of control inherent in fashioning\na truly effective system of enforcement of immigration laws.\nPresent document use and personal identification systems\nin this country are inadequate from a law enforcement\npoint of view for effective control. We know, for instance,\nthat the number of fraudulently documented entrants to the\nU.S. is 10 times greater than the number detected. In\naddition, INS cannot confirm the departure of 10% of the\ntemporary arrivals or 600,000 persons annually. Departure\ncontrol which, when untended, leads to false claims and\ndocumentation for citizenship and identification of alien\nstatus are essential to effective immigration enforcement.\nHowever, they require computerized recordkeeping, inter-\nsystem exchanges of information and secure documentation\nprocedures which violate perceptions of the right to\ncivil freedoms and personal privacy.\nA work permit system akin to that utilized in most\nother industrialized nations in the free world would ease\nmatters considerably by making citizenship status a\nconsideration in the hiring of workers. However a work\npermit system limits certain freedoms we enjoy and have\nbeen unwilling to yield. The need for control and the\ncommitment to certain individual freedoms need not and should\nnot constitute a tradeoff. Yet finding a suitable balance\n- 219 -\nin this area is far from accomplished. Accepting a certain\ndegree of illegal immigration may necessarily be a price,\nperhaps even a desirable price, to pay.\nImmigration enforcement must also be evaluated in the\noverall hierarchy of law enforcement demands. Presently\nthe border is a revolving door. On the individual level,\nillegal entry is a victimless crime. We repatriate\nundocumented workers on a massive scale only through Mexican\ncooperation. The illegals cooperate by agreeing to voluntary\ndeparture and significant numbers promptly re-enter. It is\nnot unusual for an illegal to undergo multiple apprehensions\nand re-entries for there are no serious deterrents. The\npolicy of U.S. Attorneys is to waive prosecution, except\nfor the most aggravated offenses, and our penal system has\nno capacity to ingest large numbers of illegals. In FY 1974,\nthere were 741, 349 violations which could be entertained\nfor prosecution; over 92 percent were closed by blanket\nor general waiver. Even serious offenses such as smuggling\nare profitable. Smugglers were fined an average of $88 per\nconviction as against an earning of $200 per alien. Thus\nthe border situation represents a virtual standoff.\nAmerican labor was responsible for the abolishment of\nprovisions to bring temporary labor into the area. Agricultural\nand other interests have continued to fill their labor needs\nthrough a system of illegal immigration. There are actions\n- 220 -\nwhich can be taken to impede the illegal alien flow across\nthe border. For example, during Operation Intercept in\nlate 1969, through the flooding of enforcement personnel\nin the border area and the application of rigid screening\nprocedures at ports of entry without considering inconveniences\nto travelers, we were able to seal off the border quite\neffectively. Another approach is the more widespread\nuse of fencing or other types of barriers. Clearly the\nrelative importance of immigration enforcement, travel\nease and powerful domestic interests are at issue making\nthe choices complex.\n- 221 -\nB.\nINFORMATION\nUnderlying much of the current discussion is the\nassumption that if we only knew the true dimensions of the\nillegal alien issue and its impact, we could target\nresources to the level of compliance that we wish to\nachieve. This notion may well be wishful thinking.\nWe may never know the dimensions of this issue.\nResearch into the characteristics and impact of\na clandestine population presents extraordinary difficulties.\nSome researchers believe it is similar to subjects like\npornography or victimization and is therefore unresearchable.\nIn addition, extant data systems on immigration and\nimmigration-related matters are very primitive. Hard\ndata on illegal aliens is virtually non-existent.\nThe principal repository of data on immigration,\nlegal or illegal, is the Immigration and Naturalization\nService. Related information is held by the Department\nof State due to its visa issuance function and by the\nBureau of the Census. Visa demand and issuance information\nis capable of being used to establish patterns and the\ndecennial census contains valuable information about the\nforeign-born population in the United States. INS records\ncontaining social security numbers can be matched with\nsocial security data to obtain earnings histories.\n- 222 -\nHowever, State and Census information is useful\nonly to the extent that it can be used in conjunction\nwith information flowing from the functions uniquely\nperformed by INS. INS is an agency with law enforcement\nas its primary mission. It is distinguished from other\nlaw enforcement agencies by the fact that it has a major\nservice mission to carry out in addition. Thus data\ncollection and analysis are not priority functions.\nThe information which is accumulated relates to operational\nneeds and is not research-oriented or in any way compatible\nwith systems maintained by the State Department or Census\nBureau.\nImplementation of illegal alien study programs is\nforcing INS to systematize and examine its data operations\nin an effort to incorporate the study data so it can be\ncontinually updated. However, it is but a first step.\nINS is the primary and often the only source of data on\nimmigrants, legal and illegal. Information on these groups\ndue to their size and socio-economic and political importance\nis central to adequate planning and evaluation of immigration,\npopulation and employment policy. Until this is recognized\nand increased priority through resources and expertise is\ndirected to it, effective planning on all immigration matters,\nof which illegal entry is but one manifestation, will continue\nto be largely uninformed. If INS, due to its enforcement\n- 223 -\nrole, is ill-suited also to serve as the sole or major\nrepository of statistical information, data systems and\nresearch on the effects of the law and policy it administers,\nperhaps the functions of another agency ought to be extended\nto include improvement of our knowledge of the causes,\nconsequences and characteristics of immigration to the\nU.S.\nThe lack of data coupled with a search for ways to\ndevelop reliable information for evaluating the impact of\nillegal aliens in the U.S. occupied substantial effort in\nseveral of the task forces. Specific study recommendations\nappear at the end of this chapter. However while serious\nstudy must be directed not only at illegal immigration\nbut at the related issues it raises, the paradox we face\nrests with the realization that as time brings more\nknowledge about the illegal, time may also entrench illegal\nimmigration so as to render it an increasingly irreversible\ntrend.\n- 224 -\nC.\nFOREIGN POLICY\nWere the differences between underdeveloped and\ndeveloped nations not so great, the pressures creating\nillegal immigration would, presumably, disappear. This\nsuggests emphasizing economic growth through aid, overseas\ninvestment and the like. Certainly these are not novel\nsolutions. Significant resources and attention have\nbeen funneled into the countries involved in illegal\nimmigration for decades past. Yet in many cases, the gap\nis indeed widening. Thus not only is no end in sight,\nsome conclude the world will in fact lose the development\nbattle. Such cosmic questions notwithstanding, it is not\nthe difficulty of economic development per se that causes\nthe problem before us. In fact, high out-migration\ncountries tend to be those experiencing laudable success\nin their economic expansion. Rather it is the strain\nto which economic growth is put in the face of extra-\nordinary rates of population growth. Development must run\nin order to simply stand in place due to burgeoning numbers\nof people. From a foreign policy point of view probably\nthe most productive position to pursue is a singleminded,\nlong-term commitment to population planning in developing\nnations. For numerous reasons which need not be discussed\nin this review, it would require major policy revisions for\nthe United States, at least publicly, to embrace population\ncontrol as the core element of policy with illegal alien\nsource countries.\n- 225 -\nHowever, even if such a strategy should emerge,\nthere are already in the pipeline sufficient numbers\nof people to create severe population pressure for this\nand the next generation at a minimum. It is only\nrealistic to assume that the United States will in all\nprobability absorb some of this excess. Thus the\nquestion may turn to the form in which we adjust to reality\nrather than to whether or not we accept it, the latter\nproviding, in simplistic terms, the impetus for the\nDomestic Council committee's existence. In other words,\nthe choice may already no longer be ours.\nWithout promoting a Doomsday mentality, it is not\nbeyond the realm of possibility to speculate that private\ninvestment overseas and the priorities of host governments\nmay well exacerbate migration in favoring capital rather\nthan labor intensive growth. Furthermore the export of\ncapital is virtually free of political boundary considerations\nwhereas barriers to migration make the free movement of\nlabor, viewed by some nations as a corresponding economic\nforce, impossible. The circumstances under which such\nthemes become joined with migration issues, if indeed they\never do merge, are impossible to predict. It would seem,\nhowever, that in spite of whatever difficulties migration\nmay present within the United States, we will not as a nation\nsee or support a fundamental restructuring of our outlook or\npractices on these matters.\n- 226 -\nInstead the reality of excess populations may be\nconfronted through developing distinctions between various\ntypes of migrations, encouraging some due to the\neducation and skills for instance of the migrants deemed\nto be desirable, and discouraging others as a result of\nnegative domestic impacts. Strong competing interests\nand trends will meet as the international aspects of\nillegal migration converge with domestic priorities.\nProbably the most appropriate context within which to\nformulate new goals is the growing debate over our own\nlevels of and need for growth.\n- 227 -\nD.\nGROWTH\nThe illegal alien problem is at one level a problem\nof a breakdown in law resulting in a substantial number of\npeople in the U.S. who are not authorized to be here.\nControl over who enters and exits from a nation is\nuniversally recognized as a basic feature of national\nsovereignty and erosion in the exercise of that sovereignty\nis a serious matter. At another level the illegal alien\nproblem is a question of too many unintended immigrants.\nAt this level the problem becomes one of determining\nthe optimal size and nature of immigration to the United\nStates. Since immigration is a central component in\nassessing the rate and nature of growth in this country,\nboth growth of population and growth of our work force,\nit merits full public education and debate.\nThere are many steps recommended in this report which\nwe can and must take to alleviate the problem of a breakdown\nin our law as currently conceived. But the illegal alien\nissue also raises the necessity to rethink immigration at\nits most important, provocative level. How many people\nshould be allowed to enter the United States annually to\ntake up permanent residence? What proportions should gain\nentry as a result of family ties in the U.S., employment\ncharacteristics, or refugee status? Should our neighboring\ncountries, Canada and Mexico, receive special treatment in\nthe allocation of numbers for immigrant slots? Should the\n- 228 -\nlaw distinguish between Eastern and Western Hemisphere\norigins? What role should domestic demands for foreign\nlabor play in immigration policy? What techniques can\nbe used to predict the effects of changes in immigration\nlaws?\nThese questions must be studied and debated and\nanswers must be proposed in light of current and expected\ndomestic and international circumstances. Immigration\npolicy involves difficult, far-reaching considerations\nwhich require policy attention. Effective solutions to\nthe illegal alien problem must be developed within the\nframework of overall changes in immigration policy.\nAlthough information is no substitute for careful\nanalysis and reasoned judgment, the process of reviewing\nand revising immigration policy, with illegal immigration\nas a foremost issue, will be immeasurably aided by improved\ninformation. The Committee recommends that the following\nbroad areas receive priority research concentration.\n- 229 -\nE.\nRESEARCH RECOMMENDATIONS\n1.\nThe Illegal Alien Population\nDue to recent pressures on INS to provide a better\nunderstanding of the illegal alien issue, Congress recently\nappropriated $1 million to contract studies yielding\ninformation on the number and characteristics of illegal\naliens in the United States. The Domestic Council\nCommittee has worked closely with INS drawing upon\nexpertise from traditionally more research oriented\nagencies to design a study which will be sound and which\nwill meet general policy needs of several government\nagencies concerned about the illegal alien issue. Our\nrecommendations have been that the INS study strive to\ndevelop a minimum number, or a baseline, of illegals in\nthe United States rather than a total number and that it\nconcentrate on developing information which is useful in\ndetermining the impacts and rate of growth of illegal\nmigration to the United States. The study will not be\ncomplete for another year.\n2.\nSimilarities to the Foreign Born\nOne of the most promising sources of basic socio-\neconomic information on illegal aliens is the Immigration\nand Naturalization Service (INS) Form #213 which is completed\nfor each apprehended illegal alien. The form asks age,\nsex, marital status, social security number, country of\norigin, time in the United States, and whether employed,\namong other questions.\n- 230 -\nPersons apprehended at the border (sector offices)\nhave not been successful in penetrating the United States\nand presumably do not have a direct impact on the United\nStates economy. Illegal aliens who are apprehended at\nlocations other than the border are brought to a district\noffice and interviewed. It is these persons who presumably\nhave been residing in, and have had an impact on the United\nStates. A preliminary examination of #213's filed in the\nWashington, D. C. and Chicago offices indicates that the\nforms are carefully filled out.\nWe propose that a random sample be taken from the\napproximately 160,000 #213's filed in district offices\nin 1975. This would not necessarily represent a random\nsample of illegal aliens residing in the United States\nsince the probability of being apprehended may vary in a\nsystematic manner with relevant characteristics or\nenforcement priorities. It would, however, be a first\nstep in a systematic analysis of apprehended illegal\nalien data. This data would provide insights into the\ncharacteristics and impact of illegal aliens directly and could\nthen be compared with Census Data on the foreign born to\ndetermine similarities and differences between these\npopulation groups in order to develop further insights\ninto the impact of illegal aliens.\n- 231 -\n3.\nThe Displacement Factor\nOne of the central questions surrounding the issue\nof the impact of illegal aliens on the labor market\ncenters on whether illegal aliens actually \"displace\"\nlegal residents from jobs they would otherwise have\ntaken and the effect on the earnings of legal residents:\n(a) What is the effect of the presence of illegal\naliens on wages and working conditions in different\njobs?\n(b) To what extent do domestic workers adjust their\nlabor force participation and occupational choice\nto changes in wage rates and working conditions?\nTo what extent do income support payments serve as\nan impediment to labor force and occupational\nadjustments for legal residents?\n(c) What are the labor force characteristics of the\nillegals: wages, skill, and occupational distribution,\nlabor force participation, unemployment, etc.?\n(d) What is the effect of illegal aliens on GNP, on\nthe distribution of this income and on the efficiency\nof resource allocation?\n(e) What is the net social cost (or net social benefit)\nfrom illegals? How can the net cost be minimized?\n4.\nUse of Public Services\nThe question of whether or not illegal aliens create\na FORD LIBRARY\nburden for public service programs is of considerable\n- 232 -\nimportance in assessing the significance of their presence\nto this country. There is, however, very little data to\nsupport any conclusions on this topic. Most studies tend\nto indicate that the use of public services by illegal\naliens is infrequent. Unfortunately, the quality of\nthis data is poor. A meaningful assessment of this\nquestion cannot be made until additional research has\nbeen done. Such studies may need to address the different\ngroups within the illegal alien population, different\nareas of the country and the different services.\n--- One HEW study which will shortly be underway\ndeals with the medical costs incurred by illegal\nimmigrants. This project will attempt to\ndetermine the magnitude of the problem in seven\ndifferent cities where large numbers of illegal\naliens are apprehended by the INS. Researchers\nwill determine what criteria hospitals use in\nidentifying illegal aliens and how accurate these\nidentifications are. The study will assign a\nrough dollar figure to the services rendered and\nwill be able to conclude whether or not a substantial\nproblem exists for the hospitals included in the\nstudy.\n-- In an effort to encourage Federal/state interaction,\ncase studies using state agencies, immigration aid\ngroups and the like should be undertaken at the local\n- 233 -\nlevel. One promising area of inquiry would be a\nstudy of the impact on the educational system of a\nlarge city such as Los Angeles or New York. The County\nof San Diego has already undertaken a systematic\nsearch of its records and agencies in an effort to\ndetermine the uses of its services by illegal aliens.\nThe problem with this approach rests with creating non-\ncomparable data and using incompatible methodologies.\n5. Migration Patterns\nThe rise of Third World nations, their exploding populations\nand the implications for interregional economic development are\nbecoming more apparent. In our case, there is the added dimen-\nsion of border region research and policies. Research should\nconcentrate on the following areas:\n-- Comparative study of migration experience, including\nintra-European and intra-Caribbean migration, including\nguest workers, and the mechanisms which have been\ndeveloped in those areas.\n-- Demographic trends and policies and their impact on\nmigration to the border zones and from one country to\nanother.\n-- The impact that movement of people has on international\ntransfer of science and technology.\n-- Evaluation of alternatives for economic assistance for\nthe development of the border regions in Mexico. Specific\nattention would be given to those elements essential for\na coordinated and integrated economic approach.\n- 234 -\n6.\nCommunity Attitudes\nFor the future, more should be done in the way of\nassessing the perceptions of certain communities towards\nillegal aliens, their impacts and the relative effects of\nvarious law enforcement techniques which are used to\nidentify such persons.\n7.\nImmigrant Studies\nThe ethnic makeup of our legal immigration since\n1965 is considerably different from that of the preceding\nera. The ethnicity and the demographic characteristics\nof immigrants are increasing in importance as social\npolicy issues because of government programs. More research\nmust be devoted to longitudinal analysis of legal immigrants.\nAt this time study should concentrate upon the optimal\ncharacteristics of immigration including analysis of\nadmission criteria and systems. U.S. experiences with\nguest worker type programs and comparative analysis with\nlabor importing countries should be assessed in order to\nevaluate the trade in goods or trade in labor supplies\nquestions immigration policy poses.\n- 235 -\nCHAPTER VIII\nCONCLUSIONS AND MAJOR RECOMMENDATIONS\nIn drawing conclusions and formulating recommendations,\nit is important to reemphasize the preliminary nature of this\nreport. The illegal immigration phenomenon is complex and an\ninteragency examination of this issue is a very recent develop-\nment. The charge to the Domestic Council Committee was to\ndevelop a comprehensive approach to the issue. In furtherance\nof that goal, this report attempts to provide a clear statement\nof the issue in its broad terms, assess current information,\nand chart the process and tasks through which the executive\nbranch of government should proceed as a result.\nOne clear theme of this report is that a dramatic lack of\nreliable information makes thorough analysis of illegal\nimmigration impossible at this time. Thus the conclusions which\nthe Committee has drawn are tentative and subject to revision.\nNevertheless the Committee believes that certain judgments can\nand should be made in an effort to channel further inquiry in\na productive fashion.\nA. CONCLUSIONS\n1. Illegal immigration is rooted in powerful\nsocial and economic forces endemic to both\nhost and sending countries.\nHistorically Mexico has been and remains a\nmajor source of illegal entrants to the United States.\n- 236 -\nHowever illegal immigration today involves many\nnations and new migration streams. Sending countries\nare typically rapidly developing nations where rising\nexpectations combined with population pressure have\nfar surpassed the ability of economic growth, albeit\nsubstantial, to narrow significantly the income gap\nwith the U.S. Thus pressure to emigrate is intense,\nand large numbers of people have already emigrated to\nthe United States legally from source countries in\naccordance with the 1965 Amendments to the Immigration\nand Nationality Act (INA). These amendments markedly\nchanged legal immigration to permit large numbers of\nLatin and Asian origin groups and to diminish numbers\nof Europeans who immigrate. Illegal immigration must\nbe studied in the context of migration incentives and\nthe law governing legal entry. United States employers\nseek foreign workers for many kinds of work. Thus\neconomic opportunity and kinship and culture ties in\nthe U.S. combine with migration pressures to create\npotent push-pull forces which the INA was not designed\nto check.\n2. Illegal immigration is significant and growing.\nCurrent estimates of the stock and flow of illegal\naliens are educated guesses at best. Establishing these\nnumbers in a credible fashion is important. Although\n- 237 -\nsound numbers are not available, the relevant point for\ncurrent policy purposes is that the illegal immigration\nphenomenon is significant and growing. Our immigration\npolicy, as promulgated under the INA, is ineffective.\nOur official commitment is to an exclusionary policy\nfounded in history and domestic political considerations\nwhich allows approximately 400,000 foreign-born to take\nup permanent legal residence in this country per annum.\nThe de facto situation is quite the opposite in that a\ncombination of legal loopholes and incentives, enforce-\nment inadequacies, and international push-pull forces\nhave considerably eased limitations on immigration so that\nin practice we have a very open immigration system.\nAnalysis of this combination of factors leads inevitably\nto the conclusion that a trend has been established which\nis likely to grow if present circumstances persist.\n3. The major impact of illegal aliens at this time\nseems to be in the labor market. This impact is\nlikely to extend over time to other areas as the\nprocess of settlement proceeds.\nIllegal aliens compete effectively with native\nworkers, particularly with the minimally skilled and\nunder-employed, although the degree to which they\nactually displace native workers is unclear. These\nimmigrants raise the income of owners of capital and\n- 238 -\nland and of highly skilled workers and lower prices\nto consumers of goods and services they help produce.\nThus certain legal residents gain and others, parti-\ncularly those with few skills, lose from the presence\nof illegal aliens. However the unskilled labor which\nthe illegal generally contributes in the early stages\nof migration later tends to be offset by the costs\nincurred in the latter stages of migration when new\ncommunities of families must be absorbed. This\nresult occurs during settlement, the end-product of\nmigration. Initially the migrant generally intends\nto emigrate only temporarily. However his aspirations,\nobjectives and opportunities become attached to the\nhost country so that he eventually remains, establish-\ning or sending for family rather than returning.\n4. The community-related implications of large\nnumbers of illegal aliens are significant and\nmerit government attention.\nThe ineffectiveness of the INA has helped to\ncreate communities concentrated in our largest urban\ncenters whose existence depends on avoidance of law\nand authority. Breeding these conditions signals\nlong-run negative social implications for ethnic\nAmericans and for the ability of state and local\nunits of government to function effectively. Aside\nfrom the question of economic impact, the ramifica-\ntions of harboring large numbers of people in illegal\n- 239 -\nstatus are undesirable and contribute to a breakdown\nin the institutions and systems upon which we depend\nfor fair government.\n5. Effective enforcement of the Immigration and\nNationality Act must stress prevention above all\nother considerations.\nIt is vastly more desirable from both a policy\nand a resources standpoint to prevent entry of the\nillegal or screen out potential illegals before\narrival than to locate and apprehend the illegal\nonce he is in the U.S. This strategy is currently\naccepted but it will require more adequate resources\nfor both the State Department and the Immigration and\nNaturalization Service, improved management and\ntactics, legislation, and greater cooperation among\nfederal agencies with related enforcement responsi-\nbilities to be effective.\n6. Effective enforcement is not enough. The illegal\nalien issue is ultimately an issue of immigration\npolicy and will not be satisfactorily met until\na thorough rethinking of our immigration policy\nis undertaken.\nWho may enter this country for what periods of\ntime under which circumstances are the questions we\nmust, as a nation, answer. These questions in turn\nraise questions about employment, population, and\n- 240 -\nother broad policy areas. The law must be revised\nto incorporate current and future realities not\nenvisaged in the 1965 deliberations in which our\npresent system was formulated. The executive branch\nmust provide leadership and take an active role in\nthe development of a better immigration policy.\nSerious study, widespread discussion, public educa-\ntion, interagency coordination, adequate resource\nallocation, policy analysis, planning, and coopera-\ntion with state and local levels of government are\nall needed.\nB. MAJOR RECOMMENDATIONS\nThe recommendations set forth below do not pre-\nclude the more specific recommendations contained at\nthe end of individual chapters. Specific chapter\nrecommendations will presumably be implemented as\npart of the overall follow-up to this\nreport by the Committee in accordance with the major\nrecommendations below. The Committee does not\nbelieve any single element among its recommendations\ncan solve the illegal alien problem. It does believe\nthat the cumulative effect of implementing the\nrecommendations which follow will be to slow the\nflow of illegal aliens significantly and to take\nmajor strides toward the development of a more\neffective immigration policy.\n- 241 -\n1. The issue of illegal immigration merits priority\nattention and requires Cabinet leadership. Actions\nto be taken cross many bureaucratic and agency lines\nand will require continued coordination and direction\nat the highest level.\n2. The executive branch should aggressively pursue\nthe enactment of legislation which relates directly\nto the illegal alien question and which the executive\nbranch has supported in the past. Such legislative\nactions include:\n(a) penalties for employers who knowingly hire\naliens not authorized to work;\n(b) application of the preference system and\nforeign state limitations to Western Hemis-\nphere immigration in a manner similar to\nthat regulating Eastern Hemisphere immigra-\n47/\ntion;\n(c) thorough revision of the labor certification\nprovisions of the current law so that immi-\ngrants admitted for employment fall within\nprescribed quotas and individual certifications\nare eliminated;\n47/\nP.L. 94-571, signed on October 20, 1976, contains\nthese provisions. This report was written and approved\nprior to that action.\n- 242 -\n(d) advancement of the eligibility date for\nestablishing a record of admission for lawful\npermanent residence from June 30, 1948 to\nJuly 1, 1968; and\n(e) increased penalties for persons who smuggle\nor facilitate illegal immigration.\n3. The Committee should evaluate the current H-2 or\ntemporary worker program authorized by the INA to\ndetermine if it is adequate, both from an administra-\ntive and statutory standpoint, to meet the legitimate\nneeds of employers for temporary foreign workers. It\nshould further assess the United States experience\nwith the bracero program and the experiences of other\nnations with guest worker programs. An expanded,\ngovernment to government foreign worker program should\nnot be sought at this time. However, means of\nimproving the government's responsiveness to employers\nunder current law should be developed if necessary.\n4. The agencies administering the INA -- INS and the\nDepartment of State -- should receive high priority\nin the allocation of resources directed at prevention\nof and screening for illegal entries, management and\noperational upgrading, and inter-Departmental coor-\ndination.\n5. The Committee is concerned about the large number\nof illegal aliens already in the United States. The\n- 243 -\nCommittee believes that massive deportation is both\ninhumane and impractical. It is expected that the\nenactment of the legislation described in recommen-\ndation #2 would permit some illegal aliens to adjust\ntheir status and cause many others to decide to leave\nthe United States. In addition, the Committee should\nevaluate and develop other policy approaches toward\nthose illegal aliens currently in the country.\n6. The Department of State should undertake serious,\nhigh-priority exchanges, in addition to those underway\nwith Mexico, with governments of the major illegal alien\nsending countries on the illegal migration issue, visa\ncontrols, and U.S. domestic pressures and activity\nsurrounding the illegal alien. U.S. foreign aid and other\nefforts toward less developed nations should be encouraged,\nbut with greater emphasis on factors that would reduce the\npressures that encourage migration, e.g., population plan-\nning, rural economic development and labor intensive\nprograms.\n7. The Committee and the cognizant federal agencies should\ninitiate and support a broad based research program to\ndetermine the nature and scope of various immigration\nrelated problems. This must include research within\ngovernment agencies as well as through contracting with\noutside individuals and institutions, involvement of\nother levels of government and consultation with a wide\nvariety of experts in many disciplines. Relevant economic,\n- 244 -\nsociological, demographic and labor market data are\nneeded to adequately examine existing policies and\nupdate them.\n8. The Committee should initiate a thorough re-\nexamination of the basic precepts and operations of\ncurrent immigration policy with the goal of developing\nproposals and systems which are based on information\ndeveloped through careful study and research and\nwidespread discussion among affected interest groups\nand the general public.\n- 245 -\nBibliography\nBooks, Monographs, Study Reports and Unpublished Papers:\nBohning, W. R. and Maillot, D. The Effects of the Employment\nof Foreign Workers. Paris, France: Organization for Economic\nCooperation and Development, 1974.\nBriggs, Vernon M., Jr. Chicanos and Rural Poverty. Baltimore:\nThe Johns Hopkins University Press. 1973\nBriggs, Vernon M., Jr. Mexican Migration and the U.S. Labor\nMarket, A Mounting Issue for the Seventies. Austin: Center for\nthe Study of Human Resources, The University of Texas, 1974.\nBriggs, Vernon M., Jr. The Mexico-United States Border:\nPublic Policy and Chicano Economic Welfare. Austin: Center\nfor the Study of Human Resources, The University of Texas,\n1974.\nBustamante, Jorge A. So-called Wetbacks: The Social Economic\nand Political Meaning of Immigration to the U.S., Mexico.\nD. F.: Universidad Nacional de Mexico, 1972.\nChiswick, Barry R. \"The Effect of Americanization on Earnings,\"\nmimeo, July, 1976.\nCornelius, Wayne A. and Canedo, Juan Diez, \"Rural Change and\nEmigration: Impact on Mexico and the U.S.,\" paper presented\nat American University, Washington, D. C. March 18, 1976.\nFragomen, Austin J. The Illegal Alien: Criminal or Economic\nRefugee? New York: Center for. Migration Studies, 1973.\nGalarza, Ernesto. Merchants of Labor, The Mexican Bracero\nStory. Los Angeles: Rosicrucian Press, 1964.\nGamio, Manuel. Mexican Immigration to the United States: A\nStudy of Human Migration and Adjustment. Chicago: University\nof Chicago Press, 1930; reprint ed. with a new introduction\nby John H. Burma, New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1971.\nGrebler, Leo. \"Mexican Immigration to the United States: The\nRecord and its Implications\" Advance Report No. 2, Mexican\nAmerican Study Project, University of California, 1966.\nKarkashian, John E. \"The Illegal Alien.\" Paper presented at\n18th Session, Senior Seminar in Foreign Policy, Foreign Service\nInstitute, Department of State, Washington, D. C., 1976.\n- 246 -\nLawrence, Loren E. \"The Illegal Immigrant to the United States:\nA Profile of the Characteristics and Techniques and the Impact\nof His Presence on the Foreign Service.\" Paper presented at the\n16th Session, Senior Seminar in Foreign Policy, Foreign Service\nInstitute, Department of State, Washington, D. C., April 1974.\nMarshall, Ray \"Economic Factors Influencing the International\nMigration of Workers,\" paper presented at Weatherhead Foundation,\nSan Antonio, April 15, 1975.\nMason, John D. \"The Aftermath of the Bracero: A Study of the\nEconomic Impact on the Agricultural Hired Labor Market of\nMichigan from the Termination of Public Law 78\" (unpublished\nPh. D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1969).\nNational Center for the Study of Alien's Rights, \"Alien\nInfinity Study,\" The University of San Diego School of\nLaw, June, 1976.\nNorth, David S. The Border Crossers. Washington: Trans-Century,\n1970.\nPiore, Michael J. \"The 'New Immigration' and the Presumptions\nof Social Policy.\" Paper presented at the Industrial Relations\nResearch Association, 29 December 1974.\nPiore, J. \"The Labor Market and Manpower Policy Implications\nof Illegal Immigration,\" Draft prepared for the National\nCommission on Manpower Policy, Feb., 1976.\nPower, Jonathan, \"Europe's Army of Immigrants,\" paper\ncommissioned for International Institute for Environment\nand Development, 1974.\nRungeling, Brian Scott \"Impact of the Mexican Labor Commuter\non the Apparel Industry of El Paso, Texas,\" (unpublished Ph.\ndissertation, University of Kentucky, 1969).\nSamora, Julian. Los Mojados: The Wetback Story. Notre Dame:\nUniversity of Notre Dame Press, 1971.\nStoddard, Ellwyn R. \"Illegal Mexican Labor in the Borderlands:\nInstitutionalized Support of An Unlawful Practice, a paper\nprepared for presentation at the 70th Annual Meeting of the\nAmerican Sociological Association, Aug. 25-29, 1975.\nTomasi, S. M. and Keely, C. B. Whom Have We Welcomed?, New\nYork: Center for Migration Studies, 1975.\n- 247 -\nWeaver, Thomas and Downing, Theodore E. eds. Mexican Migration,\nTuscon: University of Arizona Press, 1976.\nZPG and Immigration: A Discussion Paper. Prepared by the\nImmigration Committee of Zero Population Growth, 1346\nConnecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, D. C., January 1974.\nSpecific Articles:\nAbrams, Elliott, and Abrams, Franklin S. \"Immigration Policy --\nWho Gets In and Why?\" The Public Interest 38 (Winter 1975), pp.\n3-29.\nBernsen, Sam \"Search and Seizure on the Highway for Immigration\nViolations: A Survey of the Law,\" San Diego Law Review, December,\n1975, vol. 13, no. 1, pp 69-81.\nBriggs, Vernon M. Jr., \"Illegal Aliens: The Need for a\nRestrictive Border Policy,\" Social Science Quarterly, Dec.,\n1975, vol. 56, no. 3, pp. 447-484.\nBriggs, Vernon M. Jr., \"Illegal Immigration and the American\nLabor Force,\" American Behavioral Scientist, Jan/Feb., 1976.\nvol. 19, no. 3, pp. 351-363.\nBustamante, Jorge A. \"The Historical Context of Undocumented\nMexican Migration to the United States,\" Aztlan, Chicano Journal\nof the Social Sciences and Arts, Fall, 1972, vol. 3, no. 2,\npp. 257-281.\nBustamante, Jorge A., \"Structural and Ideological Conditions\nof the Mexican Undocumented Immigration to the United States,\"\nAmerican Behavioral Scientist, Jan./Feb., 1976, vol. 19, no. 3,\npp. 364-376.\nCorwin, Arthur F. \"Mexican-American History: An Assessment.\"\nPacific Historical Review 42 (August 1973) : pp. 269-308.\nCorwin, Arthur F. \"Mexican Emigration History, 1900-1970:\nLiterature and Research.\" Latin American Research Review\n8 (Summer 1973) : pp. 3-24.\nDagodag, W. Tim, \"Source Regions and Composition of Illegal\nMexican Immigration to California\" in International Migration\nReview, Winter, 1975.\nDavis, Kingsley, \"The Migrations of Human Populations\" in\nScientific American, vol. 231, no. 3, Sept. 1974.\n- 248 -\nEricson, A. S. \"Impact of Commuters Across the Mexican Border,\"\nMonthly Labor Review, Aug., 1970, pp. 18-27.\nFragomen, Austin T., Jr. \"Constitutional Rights of Aliens\nUpon Arrest.\" International Migration Review 7 (Spring 1973), pp.\n67-71.\nFragomen, Austin T., Jr. \"Searching for Illegal Aliens: The\nImmigration Service Encounters the Fourth Amendment,\" San\nDiego Law Review, December, 1975, vol. 13, no. 1, pp 82-124.\nFragomen, Austin T., Jr., and Wenk, Michael G. \"Legislative\nand Judicial Development of Interest.\" International Migration\nReview 6 (Winter 1972), pp. 435-440.\nGarza, Daniel \"Tracing the Deadly Tax Drain of Mexican Aliens,\":\nDallas, August 1974, p. 23.\nGorden, Wendell. \"A Case for a Less Restrictive Border Policy,\"\nSocial Science Quarterly, Dec., 1975, vol. 56, no. 3, pp. 485-491.\nGreene, Sheldon L. \"Immigration Law and Rural Poverty -- The\nProblems of the Illegal Immigrant.\" Duke Law Review, no. 3\n(1969), pp. 475-494.\nKeely, Charles B. \"Effect of the Immigration Act of 1965 on\nSelected Population Characteristics of Immigrants to the U.S.\"\nDemography 8 (May 1971).\nKeely, Charles B. \"The Estimation of the Immigration Component\nof Population Growth.\" International Migration Review 8 (Fall\n1974), pp. 431-435.\nKeely, Charles B. \"Immigration Composition and Population\nPolicy.\" Science 185 (16 August 1974), pp. 587-593.\nLippman, Leopold. \"Guest Workers, Handicapped Workers:\nAre They the Seed Bed of Conflict\" The Social and Rehabilita-\ntion Record, 1 October 1974, pp. 20-24.\nMartinez, Vilma S., \"Illegal Immigration and the Labor Force\"\nin American Behavioral Scientist, vol. 19, no. 3, Jan./Feb. 1976,\npp. 335-350.\nOrtega, Joe C. \"Plight of the Mexican Wetback.\" American Bar\nAssociation Journal 58 (March 1972), pp. 251-254.\nPortes, Alejandro. \"Return of the Wetback.\" Society, April/May\n1974, pp. 40-46.\n- 249 -\nRitterband, Paul. \"Law, Policy, and Behavior: Educational\nExchange Policy and Student Migration.\" American Journal\nof Sociology 76 (July 1970), pp. 71-82.\nRizzo, John J. \"Alien Welfare Benefits: An Examination of\nEligibility Requirements Based on Citizenship.\" Syracuse\nLaw Review 22 (1971), pp. 1047-1063.\nRobinson, Dianne. \"State Regulation of the Employment of\nIllegal Aliens: A Constitutional Approach.\" Southern\nCalifornia Law Review 46 (March 1973) pp. 565-584.\nRodino, Jr., Hon. Peter W. \"The Impact of Immigration on the\nAmerican Labor Market.\" Rutgers Law Review 27 (Winter 1974),\npp. 245-274.\nVelie, Lester, \"Poverty at the Border: Mexican Labor Brought\nin by Greedy U.S. Employers,\" Readers Digest, 97, August,\n1970, pp. 92-97.\nWestoff, Leslie A. \"Should We Pull Up the Gangplank?\"\nThe New York Times Magazine, 16 September 1973, p. 15.\nWilliams, Dean L. Some Political and Economic Aspects of\nMexican Immigration into the U.S. Since 1941. With Particular\nReference to This Immigration into California. San Francisco:\nR & E Research Associates, 1973.\nGovernment Publications and Reports (Published and Unpublished):\nCongressional Documents:\nU.S. Congress. House. Amending the Immigration and Nationality\nAct, and for Other Purposes. (To accompany H.R. 982). House\nReport No. 93-108. 93d Cong., 1st sess., April 5, 1973.\nU.S. Congress. House. Immigration and Nationality Act Amend-\nments of 1973. (To accompany H.R. 981) House Report No. 93-461.\n93d Cong., 1st sess., September 11, 1973.\nU.S. Congress. House. Committee on Government Operations.\nImmigration and Naturalization Service Regional Office\nOperations. Part 1. Hearings before a Subcommittee of the\nCommittee on Government Operations, 93d Cong., 1st sess.,\nMarch 27; April 3 and 10, 1973.\nU.S. Congress. House. Committee on Government Operations.\nImmigration and Naturalization Service Regional Office Operations.\nPart 2. Hearings before a Subcommittee of the Committee on\nGovernment Operations, 93d Cong., 1st sess., May 18, June 18\nand 28, 1973.\n- 250 -\nU.S. Congress. House. Committee on Government Operations.\nImmigration and Naturalization Service Regional Office Opera-\ntions. Part 3. Hearings before a Subcommittee of the Committee\non Government Operations, 93d Cong., 1st sess., September 17\nand 18, 1973.\nU.S. Congress. House. Committee on Government Operations.\nImmigration and Naturalization Service Regional Office Opera-\ntions. Part 4. Hearings before a Subcommittee of the Committee\non Government Operations, 93d Cong., 1st sess., November 13\nand 14, 1973.\nU.S. Congress. House. Committee on Government Operations.\nImmigration and Naturalization Service Regional Office Opera-\ntions. Part 5. Hearings before a Subcommittee of the Committee\non Government Operations, 93d Cong., 2d sess., August 13;\nSeptember 12, 17, 18; and October 9, 1974.\nU.S. Congress. House. Committee on Government Operations.\nInterim Report on Immigration and Naturalization Service\nRegional Office Operations. House Report No. 93-1623.\n93d Cong., 2d sess., December 18, 1974.\nU.S. Congress. House. Committee on Government Operations.\nLaw Enforcement on the Southwest Border. Review of Reorgani-\nzation Plan No. 2 of 1973 and Related Developments. Hearings\nbefore a Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations,\n93d Cong., 2d sess., July 10, 11, 16; and August 14, 1974.\nU.S. Congress. House. Committee on Government Operations.\nLaw Enforcement on the Southwest Border (Problems of Coordina-\ntion between Immigration and Naturalization Service and\nCustoms Service). House Report No. 93-1630. 93d Cong., 2d\nsess., December 18, 1974.\nU.S. Congress. House. Committee on the Judiciary. Hearings\nbefore Subcommittee No. 1 on H.R. 9112, H.R. 15092 and H.R.\n17370 to Amend the Immigration and Nationality Act, and for\nOther Purposes, 91st Cong., 2d sess, July 16, 22, and 29,\n1970, August 5 and 6, 1970.\nU.S. Congress. House. Committee on the Judiciary. Illegal\nAliens. Part 1. Hearings before Subcommittee No. 1, 92d Cong.,\n1st sess., May 5; June 3, 19 and 21, 1971.\nU.S. Congress. House. Committee on the Judiciary. Illegal\nAliens. Part 2. Hearings before Subcommittee No. 1, 92d Cong.,\n1st sess., June 24, 25; July 9 and 10, 1971.\n- 251 -\nU.S. Cong. House. Committee on the Judiciary. Illegal Aliens.\nPart 3. Hearings before Subcommittee No. 1,92d Cong., 1st\nsess., October 22 and 23, 1971; January 21, 1972.\nU.S. Cong. House. Committee on the Judiciary. Illegal Aliens.\nPart 4. Hearings before Subcommittee No. 1, 92d Cong., 2d sess.,\nMarch 10 and 11, 1972.\nU.S. Cong. House. Committee on the Judiciary. Illegal Aliens.\nPart 5. Hearings before Subcommittee No. 1, 92d Cong., 2d sess.,\nMarch 22, 23, and 24, 1972.\nU.S. Cong. House. Committee on the Judiciary. Illegal Aliens:\nA Review of Hearings Conducted During the 92d Congress (Serial\nNo. 13, Pts. 1-5) by Subcommittee No. 1, 93d Cong., 1st sess,\nFebruary 1973.\nU.S. Cong. House. Committee on the Judiciary. Illegal Aliens.\n(To accompany H.R. 982). Hearings before Subcommittee No. 1,\n93d Cong., 1st sess., March 7 and 8, 1973.\nU.S. Cong. House. Committee on the Judiciary. Western Hemi-\nsphere Immigration. Hearings before Subcommittee No. 1 on H.R.\n981, 93d Cong., 1st sess., March 28; April 12; June 6, 7, 13\nand 14, 1973.\nU.S. Cong. House. Committee on the Judiciary. Review of the\nAdministration of the Immigration and Nationality Act.\nHearings before the Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship,\nand International Law, 93d Cong., 1st sess., July 26;\nSeptember 13, 18, and 20, 1973.\nU.S. Cong. House. Committee on the Judiciary. Report of the\nSpecial Subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary to\nReview Immigration, Refugee, and Nationality Problems, 93d\nCong., 1st sess., December 1973.\nU.S. Cong. Senate. Committee on Labor and Public Welfare.\nMigrant and Seasonal Farmworker Powerlessness, Part 4-B,\n5-B and 7-B. Hearings before the Subcommittee on Migratory\nLabor, 91st Cong., 1st and 2nd sess., 1969-1970.\nU.S. Cong. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary. Immigration\n1976. (To accompany S-3074). Hearings before the Subcommittee\non Immigration, Citizenship and International Law, 94th Cong.,\n2nd sess., 1976.\n- 252 -\nU.S. Cong. General Accounting Office. A Single Agency\nNeeded to Manage Port-of-Entry Inspections --\nParticularly at U.S. Ports: Report to the Congress\nby the Comptroller General of the United States. B-114898,\nWashington, D. C., May 30, 1973.\nU.S. Cong. General Accounting Office. Aliens Are Illegally\nEntering the U.S. Mainland Through Puerto Rico and the U.S.\nVirgin Islands: Report to the Congress by the Comptroller\nGeneral of the United States. GGD-76-5, Washington, D.C.,\nSeptember 8, 1975.\nU.S. Cong. General Accounting Office. Better Controls Needed\nto Prevent Foreign Students from Violating the Conditions of\nTheir Entry and Stay While in the United States: Report to\nthe Congress by the Comptroller General of the United States.\nGGD-75-9, Washington, D.C., February 4, 1975.\nU.S. Cong. General Accounting Office. Immigration -- Need to\nAssess U.S. Policy: Report to the Congress by the Comptroller\nGeneral of the United States. GGD-76-101, Washington, D. C.,\nOctober, 1976.\nU.S. Cong. General Accounting Office. More Needs to Be Done\nto Reduce the Number and Adverse Impact of Illegal Aliens\nin the United States: Report to the Congress by the Comptroller\nGeneral of the United States. B-125051, Washington, D. C.,\nJuly 31, 1973.\nU.S. Cong. General Accounting Office. Need to Reduce Public\nExpenditures For Newly Arrived Immigrants and Correct Inequity\nin Current Immigration Law: Report to the Congress by the\nComptroller General of the United States. GGD-75-107,\nWashington, D. C., July 15, 1975.\nU.S. Cong. General Accounting Office. Needs for Improvement\nin Management Activities of the Immigration and Naturalization\nService: Report to the Congress by the Comptroller General of\nthe United States. B-125051, Washington, D. C., August 14, 1973.\nU.S. Cong. General Accounting Office. Smugglers, Illicit\nDocuments, and Schemes Are Undermining U.S. Controls Over\nImmigration: Report to the Congress by the Comptroller General\nof the United States. GGD-76-83, Washington, D. C. August 30,\n1976.\n- 253 -\nExecutive Department Documents:\nU.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Counting The Forgotten: The\n1970 Census Count of Persons of Spanish Speaking Background\nin the United States. Washington, D. C., April 1974.\nU.S. Commission on Population Growth and the American Future.\nPopulation and the American Future. Final Report. Washington,\nD.C.: Government Printing Office, 1972.\nU.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census. Census\nPopulation, 1970: General Social and Economic Characteristics.\nFinal Report PC (1)-C1, United States Summary, Washington, D. C.:\nGovernment Printing Office.\nU.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census. Selected\nCharacteristics of Persons and Families of Mexican, Puerto\nRican, and Other Spanish Origin, Current Population Reports.\nSeries P-20, No. 238. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing\nOffice, 1972.\nU.S. Department of Commerce. Economic Development Administration.\n\"Industrial and Employment Potential of the United States-Mexico\nBorder,\" by Robert R. Nathan Associates, Inc., December 1968.\nU.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Social\nSecurity Administration. \"Interactions Between Illegal Alien\nRespondents and the Social Security Tax Collection System:\nSome Preliminary Findings,\" by David S. North, July 1976.\nU.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Regional\nOffice VI. \"Regional Memorandum,\" by Howard D. McMahan,\nRegional Director. Dallas, Texas, November 1973.\nU.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Rehabilita-\ntion Service, Office of Quality Control Management. Quality\nControl in AFDC, National Findings, January-June, 1974.\nWashington, D. C. 1975.\nU.S. Department of Justice. Immigration and Naturalization\nService. Annual Report of the Immigration and Naturalization\nService. Various issues.\nU.S. Department of Justice. Immigration and Naturalization\nService. \"Illegal Aliens Policy Analysis,\" by I.C.F., Inc.\nOctober, 1975.\n- 254 -\nU.S. Department of Justice. Immigration and Naturalization\nService. \"The Gallup Study of Attitudes Towards Illegal Aliens\"\nby The Gallup Organization, Inc., June, 1976.\nU.S. Department of Justice. Immigration and Naturalization\nService. \"Fraudulent Entrants Study: A Study of Malafide\nApplicants for Admission at Selected Airports and Southwest\nLand Border Ports\" (Illegal Alien Study - Part I), September,\n1976.\nU.S. Department of Labor. Manpower Administration. Alien\nWorkers: A Study of the Labor Certification Program,\nby David S. North. Available from the National Technical\nInformation Service, Springfield, Virginia 22151, August 1971.\nU.S. Department of Labor. Manpower Administration. \"Biblio-\ngraphic Literature on Migrant Seasonal Workers: An Annotated\nReference Guide.\" Prepared by LMC Inc., October 1974.\nU.S. Department of Labor. Manpower Administration. Farming\nand Farm Labor, by Paul Sultan and Darryl D. Enos. Available\nfrom National Technical Information Service, Springfield,\nVirginia 22151, 1974.\nU.S. Department of Labor. Manpower Administration. Immigrants\nand The American Labor Market, by David S. North and William\nG. Weissert. Available from National Technical Information\nService, Springfield, Virginia 22151, April 1973.\nU.S. Department of Labor. Manpower Administration. \"The\nLegal and Illegal California Farmworker: Some Implications\nfor Unemployment Insurance,\" by Paul E. Sultan and John M.\nVirgo, January, 1974.\nU.S. Department of Labor. Manpower Administration. Illegal\nAliens: Their Characteristics and Roles in the U.S. Labor\nMarket, by David S. North and Marion F. Houstoun, 1976.\nU.S. Department of Labor. California Labor Panel to Secretary\nof Labor Wirtz, Final Report, Los Angeles, California, December,\n1965.\nU.S. Department of State. Bureau of Security and Consular\nAffairs. Report of the Visa Office. Various issues.\nU.S. Select Commission on Western Hemisphere Immigration.\nFinal Report. Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office,\n1968.\n- 255 -\nU.S. Special Study Group on Illegal Immigrants from Mexico.\n\"A Program for Effective and Humane Action on Illegal Mexican\nImmigrants.\" Washington, D.C., January 15, 1973. (\"The\nCramton Report\")\nForeign Document:\nMexico, Interdepartmental Commission for the Study of the\nProblem of the Clandestine Emigration of Mexican Workers\nto the United States of America. \"Report on Activities\nand Recommendations,\" Tlatelolco, December 14, 1972.\n(Companion to \"The Cramton Report.\").\nState and Local Government Documents:\nCalifornia, Office of the Lieutenant Governor, Migration,\n1976.\nCalifornia State Social Welfare Board. \"Position Statement:\nAliens in California.\" California: Health and Welfare Agency,\nDepartment of Social Welfare, January 1973.\nCalifornia, San Diego County Human Resources Agency. \"A\nStudy of the Impact of Illegal Aliens on the County of\nSan Diego in Specific Socioeconomic Areas,\" Nov., 1975.\nCity of El Paso, Mexico, El Paso Special Commission on\nCrime, Final Report.\nIllinois Legislative Investigating Commission. Report to the\nGeneral Assembly on the Problem of Illegal Aliens in Illinois.\nChicago, Illinois, October 1971.\nLos Angeles Police Department. \"Study of Impact of Illegal\nAliens on Crime in L.A. : Ramparts Division Case Study.\"\nLos Angeles, Ca., September 1974.\nTexas Department of Community Affairs, \"Illegal Juvenile\nAlien Crime Along the Mexico-United States Borderland,\"\nState Youth Secretariat Division, June 1975.\nTexas Good Neighbor Commission of Texas. Texas Migrant Labor\n1973 Annual Report. P.O. Box 12007, Austin, Texas 78711.\nWashington. Inter-Agency Task Force for Agricultural Workers.\n\"Investigative Study of the Impact of Illegal Aliens on\nFarmworkers in the State of Washington.\" Preliminary Report,\nDecember 1974.\n- 256 -\nNewspaper Articles:\nAarons, Leroy F. \"Illegal Entrants Flock to U.S.: A New\nPoverty Class (Part I). The Washington Post, 2 February 1975.\nAarons, Leroy F. \"Patrol Can't Keep Aliens Out (Part II):\"\nThe Washington Post, 3 February 1975.\nBuder, Leonard. \"65,000 Illegal Aliens Reported in City\nSchools.\" The New York Times, 12 June 1973.\n\"Carlos Didn't Last Long in the Promised Land.\" Washington\nStar-News, 17 November 1974.\n\"Chavez Shifts View of 'Illegals'.\" The Washington Post,\n3 February 1975.\nChriss, Nicholas L. \"Aliens Are Using Marriage to Gain\nAdmission to U.S.\" The Washington Post, 14 July 1974.\nCruz, Humberto. \"About 70,000 Aliens Are Working Illegally\nin Dade County.\" Miami News, 8 July 1974.\nDel Olmo, Frank. \"U.S. Refuses to Repay County's Alien\nHealth Bill.' Los Angeles Times, 1974.\nFarber, M.A. \"Million Illegal Aliens in Metropolitan Area\n(Part I).\" The New York Times, 29 December 1974.\nFarber, M.A. \"Unlawful Aliens Use Costly City Services (Part II) \"\nThe New York Times, 30 December 1974.\nFarber, M.A. \"Battle Expected on Tighter Laws to Curb Illegal\nAliens, (Part III).\" The New York Times, 31 December 1974.\nHolles, Everett R. \"Ruling on Mexican Aliens Stirs Chicanos'\nJob Fears.\" The New York Times, 2 December 1974.\nMeyer, Lawrence. \"Alien Plan Links Jobs to Citizenship.\"\nThe Washington Post, 5 February 1975.\nMeyer, Lawrence. \"Aliens Hard to Count.\" The Washington Post,\n2 February 1975.\n\"On Illegal Aliens.\" El Paso Times, 19 January 1975.\n- 257 -\nSatchell, Michael. \"Human Tide Cuts Deeply in America:\nIllegal Aliens and the Economy (Part I) \" Washington\nStar-News, 16 November 1974.\nSatchell, Michael. \"Life in Paradise Spent on the Run\n(Part II) \" Washington Star-News, 17 November 1974.\nSatchell, Michael. \"The Biggest Hole in the Dike (Part III) .\"\nWashington Star-News, 18 November 1974.\nSatchell, Michael. \"Solution 'Simple': Cut Off Jobs (Part IV) .\"\nWashington Star-News, 19 November 1974.\nWalsh, Denny. \"House Panel Estimates U.S. and States Lose\n$115 Million a Year in Taxes that Illegal Aliens Escape.\"\nThe New York Times, 13 June 1974.\nZeman, Ray. \"Refund for Illegal Aliens Medical Care Sought.\" \"\nLos Angeles Times, 26 June 1974.\nAPPENDIX A*\nINFORMATION LISTING OF ILLEGAL ALIEN IMPACTS\nPrepared and submitted by the\nImmigration and Naturalization Service\n*See page 125 of the report.\nIMPACT AREA\nSOURCE\nFINDING\nBalance of Payments\nSeattle Times, Seattle Washington,\nAbout $7 million is sent to Mexico each\nDecember 15, 1974.\nyear by illegal aliens in Washington\naccording to a study conducted by the\nGovernor's Interagency Task Force on\nAgricultural Workers.\nBalance of Payments\nSeattle Times, Seattle Washington,\nIllegal aliens send their earnings home\nDecember 15, 1974.\nto Mexico. Their earnings are equivalent\nto U.S. workers - i.e., they may earn as\nmuch as $5,000 a season. Little gets into\nthe local economy. If the estimate of\n5,000 illegals in the State is accurate,\nand the average may have earned $1,500 in\nthe season, then $7,500,000 of the State's\neconomy may have been affected.\nBalance of Payments\nSeattle Times, Seattle Washington,\nAt an average annual wage of about $5,000,\nDecember 15, 1974.\nillegal aliens receive about $75 million\nfrom the Illinois employment market. A\ngood portion of their income is sent to\ntheir families in Mexico and is perma-\nnently drained from the Illinois economy.\nBalance of Payments\nU.S. Congress. Illegal Aliens, Part 4\nAt these New York hearings mention is made\nHearings before Subcommittee No. 1,\nof a series of articles on illegals by\n92nd Congress, 2nd Session, March 10\nthe New York Daily News, which estimated\nand 11, 1972.\nthat illegals send $1.5 billion out of\nthe country annually.\nBalance of Payments\nNorth, David S., \"Interactions Between\nOf 793 illegal aliens who had worked in\nIllegal Alien Respondents and the\nthe U.S. at least two weeks and had been\nSocial Security Tax Collection System:\napprehended by INS, the average monthly\nGERALD\nSome Preliminary Findings,' a paper\nremittance sent to their homeland was $105\nprepared for the Social Security Ad-\nand helped support an average of 4.6\nFORD\nministration, July 1976.\npersons.\nNOTE: The following information is derived\nfrom a variety of sources. Most news-\npaper accounts rely upon information\nprovided by federal, state, and local\ngovernment agencies.\n- 1 -\nIMPACT AREA\nSOURCE\nFINDING\nCountry of Origin\nCornelius, Wayne A., \"Mexican Migration\nFunds and expertise gained in U.S. have\nto the United States: The View From\non occasion benefitted Mexican communi-\nRural Sending Communities, Presented\nties; and, in toto, while not improving\nat the Conference on Mexico and the\nsignificantly Mexican conditions,\nUnited States: The Next Ten Years,\nprobably kept them from becoming con-\nSchool of International Service, the\nsiderably worse.\nAmerican University, Washington, D.C.,\nMarch 18-19, 1976.\nCountry of Origin\nU.S. Congress. House. Illegal Aliens,\nAt the July 9-10 Hearings at E1 Paso the\nPart 2, Hearings before Subcommittee\nAmerican Consul General in Juarez\nNo 1, 2nd Congress, 1st Session,\ntestified to the effect tnat illegal\nJune 24, 25; July 9 and 10, 1971.\naliens have on the Mexican economy.\nCountry of Origin\nPortes Alejandro \"Return of the Wet-\nMexico benefits from the flow of illegals\nback\" Society, April/May 1974,\nto the U.S. in two ways: It alleviates\npp. 40-46.\nthe tensions and costs of the income\nmaldistribution by providing the poor\nwith an alternative and secondly, re-\nmittances from Mexican immigrants are\nbeing sent into the country.\n0\n- 2 -\nIMPACT AREA\nSOURCE\nFINDING\nCrime\nEl Paso Special Commission on Crime\nThere is no way of knowing how many of\nFinal Report, City of El Paso, Texas,\nthe average of 70 cars a week stolen in\npage 39.\nEl Paso cross the border, but it is\ncertainly a substantial percentage.\nCrime\nEl Paso Special Commission on Crime\nIn a single calendar quarter in 1974,\nFinal Report, City of E1 Paso, Texas,\n6,762 illegal aliens were arrested by\npage 36.\nthe downtown foot patrol for offenses\nother than illegal entry.\nCrime\nIllinois Study on Illegal Aliens,\nAlmost all are young, single male adults\nLegislative Investigating Commission,\nor married and unaccompanied by their\nState of Illinois, 1971.\nwives and families. This has bred\nprostitution.\nCrime\nM. A. Farber, \"Unlawful Aliens Use\nHalf of 210 arrested in 1973 in connection\nCostly City Services,\" New York Times,\nwith an international cocaine-smuggling\nDecember 30, 1974.\noperation were illegals living and working\nin NYC Area; estimated 6-10% of city jails'\n7,300 inmates are illegal. No evidence\nthat illegals commit more crime, pro-\nportionally, than other people.\nCrime\nI&NS Western Region, Regional\nOf 571 foreign-born felony-charged\nCommissioner's Annual Report, FY 1976,\nprisoners in Los Angeles County jails, INS\nMemorandum from Philip H. Smith dated\ninvestigators interviewed 20% and found\nSeptember 3, 1976.\nthat 35% of those were deportable.\n-\n3\n-\nIMPACT AREA\nSOURCE\nFINDING\nCriminal Justice\nJoint Crime Suppression Task Force -\nDuring a special exercise over a 3-day\nRampart Area Report. Los Angeles\nperiod in 1974, 36.3% of felony arrestees\nCounty Policy Department.\nand 17.3% of misdemeanors arrested in the\nRampart area of Los Angeles were illegal\naliens, a figure estimated to be dis-\nproportional to the assumed population by\n223 to 391%.\nCriminal Justice\nMigration, Office of the Lieutenant\nIn San Diego County 234 illegal alien\nGovernor, State of California, 1976,\njuveniles were served between June 6,\npage 53.\n1974 and July 21, 1975 at a cost of\n$370 per person. Total cost $87,048.\nCriminal Justice\nMigration, Office of the Lieutenant\nEstimated cost to probation department in\nGovernor, State of California, 1976,\nSouth Central, East Los Angeles, and West\npage 61.\nSan Fernando Valley offices for 1974 was\n$269,893.80 for 1902 illegal aliens.\nIllegals constitute 4.1% of total case\nload.\nCriminal Justice\nMigration, Office of the Lieutenant\nAccording to Raul Longoria of Edinburgh,\nGovernor, State of California, 1976,\nTexas, more than 10,000 incidents were\npage 53.\nreported in 1974 in which juvenile illegal\naliens were apprehended and charged in\nviolation of state laws.\nCriminal Justice\nIllegal Juvenile Alien Crime Along The\nCharges on apprehended illegal juvenile\nMexican-United States Borderland.\naliens.\nPrepared by the State Youth Secretariat\nDivision of the Texas Department of\n40.3% - Theft - Petty - Grand\nCommunity Affairs, June 19/5.\n26.1 - Immigration\n21.4 - Burglary\n10.5 - Other\n- 4 -\nIMPACT AREA\nSOURCE\nFINDING\nCriminal Justice\nJoint Crime Suppression Task Force -\nIllegal aliens represent 42.5% of the\nRampart Area Report. Los Angeles\nfelony arrests for repressible crime,\nCounty Police Department.\n37.4% of felony arrests for narcotic/drug\noffenses, and 38.4% of the arrests in\n\"other\" felony category.\n.A direct correlation does exist between\nthe presence of illegal aliens and the\nlevel of criminal activity.\nELICTION pepmesu\nou\nunupel ot [ suq\nnot anoissoliqui\nRonua* par\na Taje\" bgas 13\"\nMpoB 9LG\nCISEQ IM.WGM 101.K bell\nLUDGE\n01 9 PH\nnebs\nMAIS NOT\nCOMMUNITY\nDUE 20019) MSI perua of rue\na tuge\n2496 of - 5 - 012' TAXI\"\npack so 115x1.00 FUSA 11AG auger\n01. to FSKG psck OL 2600\n11110012 2 frigh ou 1116801 VIJGUE\n21110 913 9 L6 UGLE for\nINSVCI VSEV\n2003CE\nLINDING\nIMPACT AREA\nSOURCE\nFINDING\nCultural Impact\nIllinois Study on Illegal Aliens,\nSince almost all are here for the purpose\nLegislative Investigating Commission\nof earning money to take back or send\nState of Illinois, 1971.\nback to Mexico, they live under economically\ndepressed conditions that militate against\nincreasing the social well being of the\ncommunity.\nCultural Impact\nCommunity Relations Service, Dept. of\nWhile not all illegal aliens, dramatic\nJustice cited in New York Times, April\ninflux of Spanish-speaking, a majority of\n9, 1976, page 13.\nwhom are low-income, poorly-educated,\nyoung, high fertility rates, has serious\nimplications for social order: increasing\nnumber of bilingual and bicultural\ncommunities, special demands on educational\nsystem, friction between newcomers and\nsettled population.\n- 6 -\nIMPACT AREA\nSOURCE\nFINDING\nDrugs\nU.S. Congress. House. Immigration\nChinese illegal aliens were involved ex-\nand Naturalization Service Regional\ntensively in the smuggling of\nOffice Operations, Part 4 Hearing\nheroin from Southeast Asia.\nbefore a Subcommittee of the Committee\non Government Operations, 93rd Congress\n1st Session, November 13 and 14, 1973.\nDrugs\nJoint Crime Suppression Task Force -\nIllegal aliens represent a disproportionate\nRampart Area Report. Los Angeles\ninvolvement in drug and narcotic activity\nCounty Police Department.\nin the Rampart Area.\nJase'\n01\nIUG\n28 (WSLCU bb* S2I-2**\nC*\nto\nJU\n:\n- 7 -\nINSYCL VBEV\nIMPACT AREA\nSOURCE\nFINDING\nEducation\nBuder, Leonard. \"65,000 illegal\nInstruction of illegals costs New York\naliens reported in city schools.\"\nCity $78 million per year, an estimate\nThe New York Times, 12 June 1973.\nderived from federal figures. One\nthousand foreign students are enrolled\nat City University. Although foreign\nstudents pay the annual tuition of $900,\nthe actual cost per student is about\n$2,100 per year.\nEducation\nCalifornia State Social Welfare Board.\nBrief analysis of the number, cost impact\n\"Position Statement: Aliens in\nof foreign students on California insti-\nCalifornia.\" California: Health and\ntutions of higher learning.\nWelfare Agency, Department of Social\nWelfare, January 1973.\nEducation\nOrtega, Joe C. \"Plight of the Mexican\nIllegal aliens living in the U.S. have very\nWetback.\" American Bar Association\nfew rights. Children of illegals are\nJournal 58 (March 1972) pp. 251-54.\ndenied education in California where state\nlaw requires school superintendents to\nrequest documentation of citizenship of\nchildren.\nEducation\nMigration, Office of the Lieutenant\nClaim for reimbursement as a result\nGovernor, State of California, 1976,\nof educating nonimmigrant and noncitizen\na\npage 48.\npupils in California in 1971-1972 -\n4,386,017.49 for 5818 pupils.\nEducation\nMigration, Office of the Lieutenant\nThe claims for reimbursement for the\nGovernor, State of California, 1976,\neducation of noncitizen children in San\npage 48.\nDiego County for the last 5. years have in-\ncreased from $107,000 in 1970-71 to\n$228,000 in 1974-75. Enrollment has in-\ncreased 41%.\n- 8 -\nIMPACT AREA\nSOURCE\nFINDING\nHealth\nNorth, David S., \"Interactions Between\nOf 793 apprehended illegal aliens who had\nIllegal Alien Respondents and the\nbeen employed in the U.S. for two weeks or\nSocial Security Tax Collection System:\nlonger, 27% reported using hospitals or\nSome Preliminary Findings,\" a paper\nclinics.\nprepared for the Social Security\nAdministration, July 1976.\nHealth\nU.S. Congress. House. Illegal Aliens\nEffect on well fare and medical programs in\nPart 2, Hearings before Subcommittee\nColorado. The Regional Director U.S. DHEW,\nNo. 1, 2nd Congress, 1st Session,\nand medical doctors with the Colorado Health\nJune 24, 25; July 9 and 10, 1971.\nDept. and Migrant Coalition discuss impact\nillegal aliens have in areas such as\nresiding in hazardous housing, incidence\nof infectious diseases, low level of\nimmunization, and impact on Colorado and\nMigrant Health budgets:\nHealth\nU.S. Congress. House. Illegal Aliens\nThe July 9-10 hearings held in El Paso in-\nPart 2, Hearings before Subcommittee\ncluded testimony from U.S. DHEW Regional\nNo. 1, 2nd Congress, 1st Session,\nDirector and representatives of health\nJune 24, 25; July 9 and 10, 1971.\nand welfare services, concerning impact\nof illegal aliens upon health and welfare\nin the border states.\nHealth\nCalifornia State Social Welfare Board.\nRegards data on impact illegals are having\n\"Position Statement: Aliens in\nin the state of California tax supported\nCalifornia.\" California: Health and\nmedical care.\nWelfare Agency, Department of Social\nWelfare, January 1973.\nHealth\n\"Un Illegal Aliens\" El Paso Times\nAccording to County Judge Udell T. Moore,\n19 January 1975.\nEl Paso County spent $300,000 for medical\ncare to the children of illegals.\n- 9 -\nIMPACT AREA\nSOURCE\nFINDING\nHealth\nMiami Herald, Miami, Florida, May 16,\nBetween November 1974 and May 1975\n1975.\nJackson Memorial Hospital in Miami,\nillegal aliens have cost the hospital over\n$20,000, costs which were passed on to\nother patients.\nHealth\n\"Taxpayers Hit by Alien Health Care,\"\nLos Angeles County Health Department\nThe Bakersfield Californian, October\nestimated cost of health services to\n7, 1974.\nillegal aliens during 1973-74 fiscal year\nat $8,153,804.\nHealth\nSeman, Ray: Refund for Illegal Alien\nLos Angeles County hospitals seek federal\nMedical Care Sought.\" Los Angeles\nreimbursement for $7 million in medical\nTimes, 26 June 1974.\ncare rendered each year. The county\ncollects only 10% of the costs from illegals;\ntaxpayers pay the remaining $7 million.\nHealth\nGarzà, Daniel \"Tracing the Deadly Tax\nThe illegal alien often brings serious\nDrain of Mexican Aliens,: Dallas,\ncommunicable diseases with him from Mexico,\nAugust 1974, pp. 23.\nyet avoids health officials until he is so\nsick he is an emergency case. In the mean-\ntime barrio residents and others are exposed.\nHealth\nU.S. Dept. of HEW. Regional Office\nTalks about incidence of disease among\nVI \"Regional Memorandum\" by Howard D.\nillegal aliens being one of Region VI\nMcMahan, Regional Director. Dallas,\ntop priorities.\nTexas, November 1973.\nI I 10\nIMPACT AREA\nSOURCE\nFINDING\nImpact on Illegal Aliens\nNumerous newspaper articles. Durham\nFrequent deaths of illegal aliens while\nMorning Herald, Aug. 22, 1976; New York\nriding freight trains or being smuggled\nTimes, June 6, 1976, & April 28, 1976.\nin crowded vans and trucks.\nImpact on Illegal Aliens\nNew York Times, June 6, 1976, page 26.\nBandit gangs prey on Mexican aliens\ncrossing border; in 5 months, 5 killed\nand scores wounded in 93 reported attacks;\nprobably no more than 20-25% of attacks\nare reported.\nImpact on Illegal Aliens\nIllinois Study on Illegal Aliens,\nExtortion of money by personnel placement\nLegislative Investigating Commission\nofficers of industrial plants and by some\nState of Illinois, 1971.\nunscrupulous police officials is a\nparticularly obnoxious corruptive practice.\nImpact on Illegal Aliens\nU.S. Congress. House. Committee on\nDiscussion at these hearings on the\nGovernment Operations. Immigration\nexploitation of illegal aliens by\nand Naturalization Service Regional Of-\nunscrupulous employers.\nfice Operations. Part 1 Hearings be-\nfore a subcommittee of the Committee\non Government Operations, 93rd\nCongress, 1st session, March 27; April\n3 and 10, 1973.\nImpact on Illegal Aliens\nSamora Julian. Los Mojados: The l'et-\nChapter VI offers a profile of the wetback,\nback Story. Notre Dame: University\ntalks about the problems of living outside\nof Notre Dame Press 1971.\nsociety and of the exploitation at all\nlevels.\n- 11 - -\nIMPACT AREA\nSOURCE\nFINDING\nLabor\nGregory, John. \"Life in the Barrios, A\nChicano-Mexican tensions regarding illegais:\nStudy of Alien Nation.' Los Angeles\nSome exploitation, some assistance.\nTimes, 5 January 1975.\nPrimary, though anecdotal, data on life-\nstyle differences and economic competition\nbetween the two.\nC\nLabor\nHolles, Everett R. \"Ruling on Mexican\nThe impact of the Supreme Court regarding\nAliens Stirs Chicanos' Job Fears.\" The\nthe right of resident aliens to live in\nNew York Times, 2 December 1974.\nMexico and work in the U.S.\nLabor\nWashington. Inter-Agency Task Force\nA composite of estimates from public service\nfor Agricul tural Workers. \"Investiga-\nofficials indicated the presence of 5,000 or\ntive Study of the Impact of Illegal\nmore illegal aliens working in agricul ture\nAliens on Farmworkers in the State of\nduring a peak period in 1974, most of whom\nWashington.\" Preliminary Report,\nwere concentrated in the Yakima Valley.\nDecember 1974.\nThere was an indication that most of these\nworkers were taking jobs away from local\nand U.S. migrant workers. illegals re-\nceived an estimated $7.5 million in wages\nwhich is reported by Post Offices to be\nsent to Mexico.\nLabor\nTexas Good Neighbor Commission of Texas.\nTalks about impact of illegal aliens on\nTexas Migrant Labor 1973, Annual Report.\nfarm job market.\nP.O. Box 12007, Austin, Texas 78711.\nLabor\nIllinois Legislative Investigating\nTypes of employment & places of employment\nCommission. \"Report to the General\nof illegals - procurement of social\nAssembly on the Problems of Illegal\nsecurity cards by illegals.\nAliens in Illinois.\" Chicago, Illinois,\nOctober 1971.\nLabor\nU.S. Dept. of Labor. Manpower Admin.\nStudy on the direction in the change of un-\n\"The Legal and Illegal California Farm-\nemployment insurance costs in California\nworker: Some Implications for Unem-\nshould farmworkers become eligible. Dis-\nployment Insurance,\" by Paul E. Sultan\ncusses effects illegal aliens would have on\nand John M. Virgo, January 1974.\nunemployment insurance. Also considers the\nextent, methods, and impacts of illegal\nmanpower flows into California. See\nChapters VI, VIII, IX, X.\n12\nIMPACT AREA\nSOURCE\nFINDING\nLabor\nU.S. Dept. of Labor. Manpower Admin.\nAnalysis of the patterns and barriers of\nFarming and Farm Labor, by Paul Sultan\nthe occupational and geographic mobility OI\nand Darryl D. Evans, Available from\nfarm laborers in California. Presence,\nNational Technical Information Service,\ncharacteristics and role of illegals in\nSpringfield, Va. 22151, 1974.\nfarm-nonfarm employment is considered\nin Chapters II V1I and VIII.\nLabor\nU.S. Dept. of Labor. Manpower Admin.\nStudy of the flow, magnitude and\nThe Border Crossers: People who Live in\ncharacteristics of commuting Mexican\nMexico and work in the United States,\nworkers and their impact on the resident\nby David S. North. Available from the\nAmerican Work Force in the Southwest, where\nNational Technical Information Service,\nwages are generally low and unemployment\nSpringfield, Virginia 22151, April 1970.\nhigh. The origins of the commutation\npractice, the controversies it has created,\nthe role played by the border crossers in\na variety of federal programs and the\npresence of illegals are also discussed.\nLabor\nU.S. Dept of Commerce. Manpower Admin.\nIncluded in the bibliography on migrant\n\"Bibliographic Literature on Migrant\nworkers are several references to the\nSeasonal Workers: An Annotated Re-\npresence and impact of illegal aliens in\nference Guide.' Prepared by LMC Inc.\nthe farm labor force.\nOctober 19/4.\nLabor\nU.S. Dept. of Commerce. Economic De-\nReport states that \"the large inflow of\nvelopment Admin. \"Industrial and Em-\nlegal and illegal Mexican immigrants, to-\nployment Potential of the United States-\ngether with commuters who live in Mexico\nMexican Border,\" by Robert R. Nathan\nbut work in the United States, undoubtedly\nAssociates, Inc. December 1968.\ncontributes to disruption of the labor\nmarket and to poverty problems on the U.S.\nside of the border.\nLabor\nU.S. Congress. House. Illegal Aliens,\nTestimony at these New York hearings from\nPart 4, Hearings before Subcommittee No.\nthe DOL Regional Manpower Administrator\n1, 92nd Congress, 2nd Session, March 10\naffirmed the belief that illegal aliens\nand 11, 1972.\nseriously depress wages and impair working\nconditions.\n- 13 -\nIMPACT AREA\nSOURCE\nFINDING\nLabor\nU.S. Congress. House. Illegal Aliens\nThe July 9-10 hearings held in El Paso\nPart 2 Hearings before Subcommittee\nincluded testimony and statements from\nNo. 1, 2nd Congress, 1st Session, June\nDOL Regional Manpower Director, re-\n24, 25; July 9 and 10, 1971.\npresentatives of local labor unions, em-\nployment agencies, and employers con-\ncerning impact that illegals have upon un-\nemployment, their wages and the question\nof labor certification.\nLabor\nU.S. Dept. of Labor. Manpower Admin.\nA study of that part of the U.S. immigrant\nAlien Workers: A Study of the Labor\nscreening process administered by the\nCertification Program, by David S.\nDept. of Labor's labor certification. The\nNorth. Available from the National\nreport provides a history of the program,\nTechnical Information Service, Spring-\ndescribes its operation, and analyses its\nfield, Virginia 22151, August 1971.\nimpact on the labor market.\nLabor\nPopulation and the American Future,\nRecommends that Congress immediately con-\nFinal Report. Washington, D.C.:\nsider passing legislation imposing civil\nGovernment Printing Office, 19/2.\nand criminal sanctions on employers of\nillegal border crossers or aliens in an\nimmigration status in which employment is\nnot authorized.\nLabor\nSamora, Julian, and Bustamante, Jorge.\nMexican immigration and American labor\n\"Mexican Immigration and American\ndemands.\nLabor Demands.\" Paper presented at the\nCenter for Migration Studies, Brooklyn\nCollege, New York 1970. Reprinted in\nU.S. Senate Committee on Labor and\nPublic Welfare, Hearings of the Sub-\ncommittee on Migratory Labor, 91st\nCongress, 1st and 2nd Session, Part 7-\n13 pp. 4783-4821.\nLabor\nU.S. Senate Committee on Labor &\nFocus on the presence and impact of\nPublic Welfare, Migrant and Seasonal\nillegal aliens Part 4-13 Farmworker legal\nFarmworker Powerlessness, Part I-8C\nProblems; Part 5-13 Border Commuter Labor\nHearings before the Subcommittee on\nProblems; Part 7-13 Manpower and Economic\nMigratory Labor 91st Congress 1st and\nProblems.\n2nd Session, 1969-1970.\n- 14 -\nIMPACT AREA\nSOURCE\nFINDING\nLabor\nMiami News, Miami, Florida August 26,\nAn estimated 70,000 aliens are working\n1974.\nillegally in Dade County while 43,000\ncitizens are out of work.\nLabor\nMigration, Office of the Lieutenant\nA study prepared by the San Diego County\nGovernor, State of California, 1976,\nHuman Resource Agency in November 1975\npage 29.\nestimated that approx. 9,000 illegal aliens\nhold jobs in San Diego County and earn\nwages totaling $34,560,000. 63% earn less\nthan $2.50 per hour. Average wage was\n$2.00.\nLabor\nMigration, Office of the Lieutenant\nThe Report estimates that over 150,000\nGovernor, State of California, 1976,\nillegal Mexican aliens are employed in the\npage 29.\ncity of Los Angeles alone. If accurate,\nthere are more Mexicans employed in LOS\nAngeles than in any city in Mexico except\nMexico City and Guadalajara.\nLabor\nLippman, Leopold. \"Guest Workers,\nThe use of the guest worker in Europe and\nHandicapped Workers: Are they the\nthe illegal worker in the U.S. who are\nSeed bed of Conflict\" The Social\nwilling to perform unpleasant work for low\nand Rehabilitation Record 1 (October\npay, has substantial - and negative im-\n1974): 20-24.\nplications for the prospects of employment\nfor handicapped and rehabilitated workers.\nLabor\nMexican Intersecretariat Study.\n46.8% illegal aliens found work in the U.S.\nMexico 1974.\n53.2% never did, majority in agriculture,\naverage number of days worked in U.S. was\n62.\nLabor\nWashington. Inter-Agency Task Force\nThere were overwhelming indications that\nfor Agricultural Workers. \"Investiga-\njobs were being taken from local and U.S.\ntive Study of the Impact of Illegal\nmigrant workers by illegals, which caused\nAliens on Farmworkers in the State of\nthem economic stress.\nWashington.\" Preliminary Report,\nDecember 1974.\n- 15 -\nIMPACT AREA\nSOURCE\nFINDING\nLabor\nStoddard, Ellwyn R. \"Illegal Mexican\nAccording to Cesar Chavez, a mass of un-\nLabor in the Borderlands: Institu-\nemployed Mexican Nationals available to\ntionalized Support of an Unlawful\nthe American employer would completely\nPractice,: a paper prepared for\nundermine Chicanos in their tactics of\npresentation at the 70th Annual Meeting\norganized labor bargaining.\nof the American Sociological Associa-\ntion, August 25-29, 1975.\nLabor\nIllinois Study on Illegal Aliens\nConservatively, 15,000 jobs now held by\nCommunity Relations Service, Dept. of\nMexican illegals deprive employment to\nIllinois, 1971.\nlegally admitted aliens and United States\ncitizens residing in Illinois. This\nsituation aggravates the State's unemploy-\nment problem and causes collateral, un-\nfavorable economic ramifications.\nLabor\nU.S. Congress. House. Committee on\nAt these hearings Congress talks about the\nGovernment Operations. Immigration and\ninvolvement of illegal aliens in government\nNaturalization Service Regional Office\nsponsored programs such as OEO.\nOperation, Part 1, Hearings before a\nSubcommittee of the Committee on\nGovernment Operations, 93rd Congress,\n1st Session, March 27, April 3 and 10,\n1973.\nLabor\nU.S. Congress. House. Illegal Aliens,\nAt the January 21 Detroit hearings a re-\nPart 3, Hearings before Subcommittee\npresentative of the local Veterans of\nNo. 1. 92nd Congress 1st Session,\nForeign Wars spoke on the effect of illegal\nOctober 22 and 23, 1971; January 21,\naliens upon veteran's opportunities for\n1972.\nemployment in the area.\n- 16 -\nIMPACT AREA\nSOURCE\nFINDING\nLabor\nNorth, David S., \"Interactions Be-\nThe average hourly wage of 793 apprehended\ntween Illegal Alien Respondents and\nillegal aliens who had worked in the U.S.\nthe Social Security Tax Collection\nat least two weeks was $2.71. The lowest\nSystem: Some Preliminary Findings,\" a\npaid respondents earned $2.34 per hour as\npaper prepared for the Social Security\ncompared to 84.08 for the highest paid.\nAdministration, July 1976.\nLabor\nNorth, David S., \"Interactions Be-\nOf 793 apprehended illegal aliens who had\ntween Illegal Alien Respondents and\nworked in the U.S. for 2 weeks or longer\nthe Social Security Tax Collection\nonly 16% had joined a labor union.\nSystem: Some Preliminary Findings,' a\npaper prepared for the Social Security\nAdministration, July 1976.\nLabor\nU.S. Congress. House. Illegal Aliens\nDOL Denver Regional Manpower Administration,\nPart 2, Hearings before Subcommittee\nWage and Hour Div. Asst. Area Director, and\nNo. 1. 2nd Congress, 1st Session, June\nColorado State Representatives testified\n24, 25; July 9 and 10, 1971.\nabout impact illegal aliens have on labor\nproblems (including violation of minimum\nwage laws), impact of illegals on urban as\nwell as rural employment.\nKarkashian, John E., \"The Illegal Alien\"\nLabor\nunpublished paper for the Senior Seminar\n30% apprehended in 1975 were employed and\nin Foreign Policy Dept of State, 1976.\nmany earning above minimum wage.\nLabor\nCornelius, Wayne A., \"Mexican Migra-\nAt least in the agricultural sector, the\ntion to the United States: The View\nprincipal impact seems to be the depression\nfrom Rural Sending Communities, a\nof wage scales for certain types of un-\npaper presented at the conference on\nskilled jobs, rather than displacement of\nMexico and the United States: The\nnative Americans from them. They do, how-\nNext Ten Years, School of Interna-\never, complete directly for certain types\ntional Service, The American University\nof non-agricultural jobs, particularly in\nWashington, D.C. March 18-19, 1976.\nfactories and in the construction industry;\nbut the degree of competition varies con-\nsiderably among job categories and aliens\nare frequently severely handicapped by\nlow skill levels, low levels of formal\neducation, and lack of facility in the\nEnglish language.\n- 17 -\nIMPACT AREA\nSOURCE\nFINDING\nLocal Economy\nU.S. Congress. House. Illegal Aliens\nThe October 22-23 Chicago hearings con-\nPart 3, Hearings before Subcommittee\ncerned the impact that an indeterminate\nNo. 1 92nd Congress, 1st Session,\nnumber of illegals would have on the urban\nOctober 22 and 23, 1971; January 21,\nlabor market, unemployment, and living\n1972.\nconditions of Mexican Americans in the\nChicago area.\nLocal Economy\nBriggs, Vernon M. Jr. Chicanos and\nA study on the adverse effects of the\nRural Poverty, Baltimore: The John\nSouthwest rural economy upon Chicanos,\nHopkins University Press, 1973.\nincluding considerable discussion of the\nnumber, characteristics and impact of\nillegal Mexican aliens.\nLocal Economy\nPortes, Alejandro \"Return of the Wet-\nIn the U.S. only the poor pay the price of\nback\" Society, April/May 1974,\nillegal immigration: U.S. employers\npp. 40-46.\nbenefit from the existence of this pool\nof abundant cheap labor.\nLocal Economy\nVelie, Lester. \"Poverty at the Border:\nThis article describes the adverse economic\nMexican Labor Brought in by Greedy U.S.\nproblems created for the American farm-\nEmployers.: Readers Digest 97 (August\nworker by the influx of green card commuters\n1970) 92-7.\nand border crossers.\nLocal Economy\nBriggs, Vernon M. Jr. \"The Mexico -\nThis study describes the history of illegal\nUnited States Border: Public Policy\nMexican immigration to the U.S. and recent\nand Chicano Economic Welfare.' Austin:\nattempts to control it through legislation.\nCenter for the study of Human Resources,\nThe author contends that a tight border\nthe University of Texas, 1974.\npolicy is an essential component to any\npublic effort to improve Chicano economic\nwelfare.\nLocal Economy\nGreene, Sheldon L. \"Immigration Law\nIn 1966 domestic farmworkers wages were\nand Rural Poverty - The Problems of the\nunder half the average prevailing wage in\nIllegal Immigrant, Duke Law Review, No.\nindustrial employment. Efforts to unionize\n3 (1969) 475-94.\nfarmworkers failed due to a large influx of\ninexpensive nonresident Mexican labor.\n- 18 -\nIMPACT AREA\nSOURCE\nFINDING\nSocial Security\nNorth, David S., \"Interactions Between\nOf 793 apprehended illegal aliens who had\nIllegal Alien Respondents and the\nbeen employed in the U.S. two weeks or\nSocial Security Tax Collection System:\nlonger, 77% reported they had social\nSome Preliminary Findings,\" a paper\nsecurity taxes withheld from their pay.\nprepared for the Social Security Ad-\nministration, July 1976.\nSocial Security\nU.S. Congress. House. Immigration and\nRepresentatives from DHEW testified in these\nNaturalization Service Regional Office\nhearings on the extent to which illegals are\nOperations, Part 4 Hearing before a\nreceiving benefits under social security\nSubcommittee of the Committee on\nand other programs administered or super-\nGovernment Operations, 93rd Congress,\nvised by DHEW.\n1st Session, November 13 and 14, 19/3.\nSocial Security\nU.S. Dept of HEW, Regional Office VI\nRegional Director of HEW Region VI talked\n\"Regional Memorandum,\" by Howard D.\nabout use of social security card as a\nMcMahan, Regional Director. Dallas,\ndevice for identifying persons who are\nTexas, November 1973.\nentitled to work and also identifying\nillegal aliens. This measure as a means\nto combating unemployment created by\nillegals.\nSocial Security\nNorth, David S., \"Interactions Between\nThree-quarters interviewed said their last\nIllegal Alien Respondents and the\nemployer had deducted social security con-\nSocial Security Tax Collection System:\ntributions. The pattern was uneven, how-\nSome Preliminary Findings,\" a paper\never. The lowest rate was reported in the\nprepared for the Social Security Ad-\n23 counties adjoining the U.S. -Mexico\nministration, July 1976.\nborder, where only 27.9% of the respondents\nreported deductions.\n- 19 - -\nIMPACT AREA\nSOURCE\nFINDING\nTaxes\nMigration, Office of the Lieutenant\nSan Diego County estimates that $6,768,000\nGovernor, State of California, 1976,\nin total taxes are lost through the\npage 30.\nillegal aliens employed in the county.\nTaxes\nMigration, Office of the Lieutenant\nEstimates of earnings and taxes paid based\nGovernor, State of California, 1976,\non two assumptions of number of illegal\npage 31.\naliens working.\nAssumption 1\nAssumption 2\n$24,840\nNumber\n$276,000\n123,000,000\nEarnings\n1,000,000,000\n8,200,000\nFed. In-\n92,000,000\ncome Tax\n3,400,000\nProperty\n38,000,000\nTax\n1,900,000\nS&L\n26,200,000\n1,300,000\nGasoline\n15,000,000\nTaxes\nIllinois Study on Illegal Aliens,\nOf the 190 arrested illegal Mexican aliens\nLegislative Investigating Commission,\nwho were spot-checked, 114 failed to file\nState of Illinois, 1971.\nany State income tax returns.\nTaxes\nIllinois Study on Illegal Aliens,\nApprehended illegal Mexican aliens\nLegislative Investigating Commission,\nfrequently claim up to 10-12 dependents\nState of Illinois, 1971.\neach on their Federal and State income\ntax withholding forms in order to increase\ntheir take-home pay.\nTaxes\nNorth, David S., \"Interactions Betwees\nOf 793 apprehended illegal aliens who had\nIllegal Alien Respondents and the\nbeen employed in the U.S. for two weeks\nSocial Security Tax Collection System:\nor longer, 73% reported having income taxes\nSome Preliminary Findings,\" a paper\nwithheld from their pay.\nprepared for the Social Security Ad-\nministration, July 1976.\n- 20 -\nIMPACT AREA\nSOURCE\nFINDING\nTaxes\nWalsh, Denny. \"House Panel estimates\nHouse panel estimates U.S. and states lose\nU.S. and States lose $115 million a\n$115 million a year in taxes that illegal\nyear in taxes that illegal Aliens\naliens escape.\nEscape.\" The New York Times, 13 June\nKarkashian, John E., \"The Illegal Alien\",\nTaxes\nunpublished paper for the Senior Seminar25% of employed illegal aliens receive\nin Foreign Policy, Dept. of State,\npay in cash and pay no Federal, State,\n1976.\nor city taxes.\nTaxes\nCornelius, Wayne A., \"Mexican Migration\nNearly all paid social security, about\nto the United States: The View from\nhalf had personal income taxes withheld,\nRural Sending Communities,\" a paper\nsome paid property taxes.\npresented at the Conference on Mexico\nand the United States: The Next Ten\nYears, School of International\nService, the American University,\nWashington, D.C., March 18-19, 1976.\nTaxes\nU.S. Congress. House. Interim Report\nBased on the 1973 series of hearings held\non Immigration and Naturalization\nby the Subcommittee on Legal and Monetary\nService Regional Office Operations.\nAffairs and two GAO reports on the INS\nHouse Report No. 93-1623, 93rd Congress\nrelays findings on such issues as illegal\n2nd Session, December 18, 1974.\naliens and unpaid taxes.\n- 21 -\nIMPACT AREA\nSOURCE\nFINDING\nWelfare\nNorth, David S., \"Interactions Between\nOf 793 apprehended illegal aliens who had\nIllegal Alien Respondents and the\nbeen employed in the U.S. for two weeks or\nSocial Security Tax Collection System:\nlonger, 4% collected one or more weeks of\nSome Preliminary Findings,\" a paper\nunemployment insurance, 1% participated in\nprepared for the Social Security Ad-\nU.S. funded job training programs, 1%\nministration, July 1976.\nsecured food stamps, and 0.5% secured\nwelfare payments.\nWelfare\nWashington. Inter-Agency Task Force\nThere is no indication that the presence\nfor Agricultural Workers. \"Investiga-\nof illegal aliens has caused an increase\ntive Study of the Impact of Illegal\nin demand for public welfare services ex-\nAliens on Farmworkers in the State of\ncept in food stamps andmedical services.\nWashington.\" Preliminary Report,\nDecember 1974.\nWelfare\nCornelius, Wayne A., \"Mexican Migration\n3 of 30 collected unemployment insurance;\nto the United States: The View from\nnone ever received free medical care, food\nRural Sending Communities,\" a paper\nstamps, or welfare benefits.\npresented at the Conference on Mexico\nand the United States: The Next Ten\nYears, School of International Service,\nThe American University, Washington,\nD.C., March 18-19, 19/6.\n4\nWelfare\nNew York Times, June 14, 1976, page 35.\nNYC Human Resources uncovered \"marriages\nof convenience;\" removal of 736 persons,\nincluding 103 aliens; monthly savings of\n$76,500.\nWelfare\nQuality Control Study on AFDC by\nIn a 1975 study by SRS, .036% of a re-\nSocial Rehabilitation Service.\npresentative sample of AFDC recipients\nwere found to be illegal aliens. Total\ncost of illegal aliens on welfare projected\nto be $3.8 million per year.\n- 22 -\nAPPENDIX B\nTASK FORCE MEMBERS\nImmigration Law and Policy task force\nChair: Leonard F. Chapman, INS\nMembers: Craig A. Barrington, DOL\nWilliam W. Fee, OMB\nCornelius D. Scully, DOS\nLaw Enforcement task force\nChair: James F. Greene, INS\nMembers: Malcolm E. Arnold, OMB\nMrs. Dorothy Come, DOL\nWalter J. Gorman, DOT/IRS\nVernon B. Hann, DOT/CS\nGilbert G. Pompa, DOJ/CRS\nThomas C. Parrott, HEW/SSA\nErnest B. Dane, DOS\nSocial and Community Impact task force\nChair: Victor H. Vazquez, HEW\nMembers: Meyer Zitter, Daniel Levine, CENSUS\nOrval Kerchner, DOA\nPhil Hanna, OMB\nGil Pompa, DOJ/CRS\nEconomic and Labor Market Impact task force\nChair: Abraham Weiss, DOL\nMembers: David T. Hulett, OMB\nWilliam C. Motes, DOA\nLeslie W. Small, DOC\nRoss Sommers, DOT/IRS\nForeign Relations task force*\nChair: William H. Luers, DOS\nMembers: James B. Clawson, DOT\nWilliam C. Motes, DOA\nJames M. Ravlin, DOC\n* Also known as the Inter Agency Committee on Mexican\nMigration to the U.S. which had been previously constituted\npursuant to meetings between President Ford and President\nEcheverria of Mexico in 1974. The scope of its activities\nas originally defined has been broadened for purposes of the\nDomestic Council Committee work.\n- 2 -\nHerbert N. Blackman, DOL\nVictor Vazquez, HEW\nJames F. Greene, INS\nMary Brownell, NSC\nRichard D. Parsons, DC\nLoren E. Lawrence, DOS\nJohn T. Dreyfuss, DOS\nAbbreviations\nCRS - Community Relations Service\nCS - Customs Service\nDC - Domestic Council\nDOA - Department of Agriculture\nDOC - Department of Commerce\nDOJ - Department of Justice\nDOL - Department of Labor\nDOS - Department of State\nDOT - Department of Treasury\nHEW - Department of Health, Education and Welfare\nINS - Immigration and Naturalization Service\nIRS - Internal Revenue Service\nNSC - National Security Council\nOMB - Office of Management and Budget\nSSA - Social Security Administration\nDOJ-1976-12\nIllegal Aliens\nUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE\nIMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE\nPLEASE ADDRESS REPLY TO\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20536\nCO 1326-P\nOFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER\nDEC 2 9 1976\nAND REFER TO THIS FILE NO.\nDear Mr. Parsons:\nAs part of the major Illegal Alien Study effort, I&NS has recently\ncompleted the Fraudulent Entrants Study which was designed to determine\nthe flow of illegal aliens entering through the ports of entry with\ncounterfeit or altered alien or citizen documents, borrowed or stolen\nvalid documents, false verbal claims to United States citizenship, or\nvalid documents the terms of which the bearer intended to violate.\nThe study, which was undertaken between September 1975 and February\n1976, was conducted along a statistically defensible design by two teams\nof four Immigration Inspectors each at the ten largest international air-\nports and the twelve largest Southwest border land ports of entry. Major\nfindings of the study include:\nFRAUDULENT DOCUMENTS INTERCEPTED\n(This category includes aliens with counterfeit or altered\nalien documents or who were impostors presenting valid cards\nalong the Southwest border).\nThe results of the Fraudulent Entrants Study indicate that at\nleast 14 times the routinely detected number of aliens with\nfraudulent documents successfully enter through Southwest\nborder ports of entry.\nAn estimated 145,000 aliens with fraudulent documents are\nsuccessfully entering the United States through Southwest\nborder ports each year.\nFORD is LIBRARY GERALD\nFALSE CLAIMS TO U.S. CITIZENSHIP\nThe results of the Fraudulent Entrants Study indicate that at\nleast 10 times the routinely detected number of aliens falsely\nclaiming U.S. citizenship are entering at Southwest border ports\nof entry.\nAn estimated 103,000 aliens falsely claiming to be U.S. citizens\nare successfully entering the United States through Southwest\nborder ports each year.\nALIENS VIOLATING THE TERMS OF THEIR ADMISSION WITH BORDER CROSSING\nCARDS\nThe results of the Fraudulent Entrants Study indicate that at\nleast 13 times the routinely detected number of aliens entering\nwith border crossing cards and subsequently becoming illegal once\nthey are in the United States are being admitted at Southwest\nborder ports of entry.\nAn estimated 205,000 aliens are successfully entering the United\nStates each year through Southwest border ports by entering with\na valid border crossing card and subsequently working or otherwise\nviolating the terms of their temporary admission.\nThe results of the Fraudulent Entrants Study indicate that at\nleast 14 times the routinely detected number of inadmissible\naliens are successfully entering the United States through\nmajor airports.\nFORD is LIBRARY GERALD\nAn estimated 50,000 aliens for whom it can be determined at\nentry intend to work or become illegal through other means after\nentry with a valid visitor or student visa, or who have fraudulent\ndocuments, or who make false claims to U.S. citizenship are\nsuccessfully entering the United States through the major\nairports each year. This figure does not include the thousands\nof visitors and students who enter legally and subsequently de-\ncide to remain illegally in the United States.\nBased on these data, there are more than one-half million illegal entries\ninto the United States each year through ports of entry. This number compares\nwith the 44,328 aliens who awere denied admission during 1975 because they were\nattempting entry with counterfeit or altered alien or citizen documents as\nimpostors, by false verbal claims to U.S. citizenship, or valid documents the\nterms of which the bearer intended to violate. An additional 750,000 aliens\nwho were determined to be inadmissible for other reasons were also denied\nentry during FY 1975. Aliens in these other categories were not included in\nthe Fraudulent Entrants Study, however.\nThe Fraudulent Entrants Study indicates, for international airports\nand Southern land border ports, the dimensions of the illegal alien influx.\nTo achieve a denial rate that is far closer to the total number of illegal\naliens entering through the ports, I have made prevention, both at the ports\nof entry and between them, the Service's top priority.\nI am enclosing for your interest a copy of this first completed part of\nthe Illegal Alien Study. As the other parts of this major effort become avail-\nable, they will also be forwarded to you. Please call me if you would like\nadditional copies of the Fraudulent Entrants Study or if I can answer any\nquestions you may have about the Study.\nSincerely,\nL. F. Chapman, Jr.\nCommissioner\nHonorable Richard D. Parsons\nAssistant Director and Counsel\nDomestic Council\nThe White House\nWashington, D.C. 20500"
}